The Phoenix Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that staff protected people from avoidable harm and made sure care was delivered from environments that were clean and well maintained. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The service had contracts to ensure the premises was maintained. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed all risks. The service had a business continuity plan which was regularly reviewed and outlined how the service should continue to operate in the event of a disruption.

The service employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, nurses and health care assistants. However, recruitment practices were inconsistent which meant records could not always confirm staff were suitably qualified or that a review of qualifications, obtaining professional references or criminal records checks had been carried out. We saw that staff received effective support and supervision; and that they worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. We also reviewed a selection of training records and noted that some mandatory training had lapsed. Shortly after our inspection we were sent evidence confirming that, with the exception of one staff member, training had now been updated.

We looked at systems for assessing and managing the risk of infection. The service’s infection prevention and control lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and acted where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. However, auditing arrangements were complex, across multiple documents and hindered effective risk management (for example regarding global oversight of potential risks relating to the environment and sharps handling).

We looked at how the provider had acted to manage risks associated with a bacteria called legionella (which can proliferate in building water systems). We saw that actions from recent risk assessments had not been addressed (including designating a legionella lead person and ensuring that recorded water temperatures were within the required range to minimise risk). Records confirmed that a recent water sample test had had a negative result for the presence of legionella.

The service had cleaning schedules available which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment. The service also demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. During our onsite visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.
 

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.