• Residential substance misuse service

Phoenix Futures National Specialist Family Service

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

29-31 Collegiate Crescent, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S10 2BJ (0114) 268 5131

Provided and run by:
Phoenix House

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 22 January 2019

Phoenix Futures National Specialist Family Service offers residential treatment for parents experiencing drug and/or alcohol problems whilst remaining the primary carers for their children. The service can accommodate 12 families including single parents, pregnant women or couples looking after children up to the age of ten. Children can live with their parents in the service. Children can attend the onsite nursery, currently rated Outstanding by Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED), or enrol in external childcare provision or school to allow parents to participate in treatment. Each family has their own room and access to a shared kitchen and bathroom facilities.

The service offers two flexible treatment programs of either 12 or 26 weeks. Programs consist of three elements:

  • therapy, to help clients address their substance misuse.
  • parenting, where support is offered by specialist childcare workers to improve clients’ parenting skills.
  • childcare, that includes the on-site nursery and crèche.

The service also offers an on-site medically monitored withdrawal program for clients that are physically dependent on substances, including alcohol. The service accepts referrals from community services across the country including substance misuse teams, social care organisations, courts, and privately funded clients.

The National Specialist Family Service has been registered with The Care Quality Commission since 20 January 2011 to provide accommodation for persons who require treatment for substance misuse and has a registered manager and a nominated individual in post.

The Care Quality Commission has previously inspected Phoenix Futures National Specialist Family Service on four occasions. At the last focussed inspection in July 2017 we issued the provider with one requirement notice under Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Regulation 17: Good Governance.

Following that inspection, the service sent us a plan, which set out the steps they would take to meet the legal requirements of the regulations.

We did not rate the provider on previous occasions in line with the methodology at that time.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 22 January 2019

We rated Phoenix Futures National Specialist Family Service as good because:

  • The service completed appropriate health and safety assessments of the environment including risks associated with mixed sex accommodation. The service had good facilities including the nursery, lounge and garden facilities with play equipment.
  • Staff directed clients to other services when appropriate and supported them to access those services. Staff supported clients to lead healthier lives. Clients had planned discharge exit packs which included harm reduction advice and details of their resettlement plans.
  • Safeguarding was fully embedded in the service. The service worked collaboratively with other agencies and referred, shared or escalated concerns as appropriate.
  • The service had improved and resolved issues relating to medicines management practices following our last inspection. Staff turnover and sickness rates were improving following recruitment to vacant posts.
  • The nursery within the service provided care for clients’ children in an outstanding rated OFSTED environment. This allowed parents to access the therapeutic program and have guidance on childcare and development from qualified childcare workers.
  • Clients were offered practical and emotional support by staff and others in the therapeutic community. Group meetings and therapy were delivered in a relaxed, friendly atmosphere.
  • Clients were fully engaged and participating in their care and treatment. Personal information, histories and recovery goals were evident in care plans and group discussions. Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families and carers.
  • Families and carers spoke positively of the staff and care and treatment provided; they were happy with the outcomes of the treatment. The service sought client input and made changes following discussions.
  • Staff felt proud to work for the organisation. They felt valued and respected and could raise concerns without fear of retribution. Staff told us they felt connected to the company.
  • The service followed an effective and clear framework to share information. Team meetings, supervisions and handovers had a set agenda that ensured that staff were kept informed of essential information such as client risk and care and learning from incidents or complaints.
  • The organisation encouraged creativity and innovation to ensure up to date evidence-based practice was implemented and embedded. They had achieved recognition for their work from multiple external sources.

However:

  • The service did not have total oversight of the training completed. Sessional staff had not completed all the required training and night staff training compliance figures were not provided.
  • Staffing shortages and vacancies meant that clients’ one to one sessions did not always occur weekly as detailed in the provider’s local protocol and that client leave was not always accommodated.
  • The organisation did not provide clarity around the night staffing expectations.
  • Support plans and client files did not always reflect the levels of personal knowledge and support given by staff.
  • Actions on the continuous improvement plan had been marked as complete when they were not yet fully resolved.
  • The service did not have an overarching improvement plan that included the work the service was doing in response to client feedback. The service did not have any formal mechanisms to obtain feedback from carers about the service.
  • Governance policies, procedures and protocols did not include an equality impact assessment and the service did not have its own service level risk register.