Archived: Phoenix House

Updated 6 May 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We reviewed information received about the service, for example the statutory notifications the service had sent us. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. We looked at information received from relatives and visitors.

We did not ask for a provider information return (PIR). This is a form we ask providers to send to us before we visit. However, during our inspection visit, we gave the provider the opportunity to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with the local authority commissioning team. Commissioners are people who contract services, and monitor the care and support when services are paid for by the local authority. They gave us some general feedback about one person at the service whose needs had recently changed.

The inspection took place on 30 March 2017 and was announced. We told the provider we would be coming. This ensured they would be available to speak with us and gave them time to arrange for us to speak with people and staff. The inspection was conducted by two inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

During our visit we spoke with eleven people, two relatives, four personal assistants (care workers), a senior personal assistant, an administrator and the registered manager. Phoenix House referred to their care staff as ‘personal assistants’, these staff were employed and paid by the provider.

We reviewed four people’s care records to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We checked whether all staff were trained to deliver the care and support people required. We checked whether staff had been recruited safely and looked at two staff files in detail. We looked at other records related to people’s care and how the service operated, including the service’s quality assurance audits, safety records and accidents. We also looked at safeguarding policies and procedures, following some concerns raised prior to our inspection.

Updated 6 May 2017

We carried out this inspection on 30 March 2017. We told the provider we were coming 48 hours before the visit so they could arrange for people and staff to be available to talk with us about the service.

Phoenix House is a service which provides personal care support to older people, people with physical disabilities or people living with dementia in their own homes. All of the people supported live in the same building, and the care service is based on site, as part of an extra care housing service. At the time of our visit, 30 people used the service.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A registered manager was in post and had been since July 2016.

People told us they felt safe using the service because personal assistants were skilled and knowledgeable, and knew how to care for them well. Personal assistants had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and who to contact if safeguarding concerns were raised.

Checks were carried out prior to personal assistants starting work to ensure their suitability to work with people who used the service. Personal assistants received an induction to the organisation, and a programme of training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), and gained people’s consent before they provided personal care support. The registered manager had an understanding of when people may be being deprived of their liberty.

People who required support had enough to eat and drink during the day and were assisted to manage their health needs. Personal assistants referred people to other professionals if they had any concerns.

People had a team of consistent personal assistants who they were familiar with and who provided support as outlined in their care plans. There were enough staff to care for people they supported and agency staff were used when required.

People told us personal assistants were kind and caring and had the right skills and experience to provide the care they required. People were supported with dignity and respect. Personal assistants encouraged people to maintain their independence.

Care plans contained relevant information for personal assistants to help them provide personalised care, including processes to minimise risks to people’s safety. People received their medicines when required from staff trained to administer them.

People knew how to complain and had opportunities to share their views and opinions about the service they received. This was through regular review meetings, customer meetings and also surveys.

Personal assistants were confident they could raise any concerns or issues with the registered manager knowing they would be listened to and acted on. People and staff told us the registered manager was effective and approachable.

The registered manager gave personal assistants formal opportunities to discuss any issues or raise concerns with them. There were processes to monitor the quality of the service provided. These checks and audits ensured personal assistants worked in line with policies and procedures.