CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Phoenix House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred support but unsafe medicines, recruitment gaps and weak oversight.
The inspection took place on 30 January 2020, with a second day planned for 11 February. The inspector spoke with people living in the home and staff, and checked care and medicines records.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them stay active and connected with their families and local community. There were enough staff to meet people's needs.
However, medicines were not managed safely, recruitment checks were incomplete and staff had not had refresher training for over two years. Care plans and risk assessments did not always contain enough detail. The home had no effective system to check and improve its quality. All five areas were rated Requires Improvement, down from Good at the previous inspection.
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's needs, histories, interests and preferred routines. They supported people in a person-centred way.
“Staff told us about people's needs, choices, personal histories and interests.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions, helped with everyday tasks and were encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves.
“Staff encouraged and supported people to do as much as they could for themselves.” from the report
Community and relationships
People took part in activities, went out, planned holidays and were supported to maintain contact with friends and family.
“People were very much part of the local community and spent time out and about doing various activities.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely and give them time for their interests and activities.
“There was enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Unsafe medicines management
seriousThere was not enough guidance about medicines, including injected medicines and creams. Storage temperatures, medicine movements and administration records were not consistently checked.
“Medicines were not managed safely by the staff.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousThe home could not show identity documents, photographs or references for some staff before they were employed.
“There were no ID documents or photographs available.” from the report
Training was out of date
needs fixingStaff said they had received no refresher training for more than two years, including training in safeguarding, first aid and fire safety.
“Staff told us they had not received any refresher training for over two years.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home had no audits or effective system to identify and improve problems with care, medicines, recruitment and records.
“There was not a system in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Care plans and risk assessments lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments did not give staff enough information about people's needs, choices or risks. Some documents were updated during the inspection.
“On the first day of the inspection, care plans did not contain enough detail to provide staff with the information on how people chose and preferred to be supported.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicines guidance, competency checks, storage temperature records and medicines audits?
- 02Have all staff recruitment files been checked to confirm identity documents, photographs and references are present?
- 03Which refresher training have staff now completed, particularly in safeguarding, first aid and fire safety?
- 04How are you now checking that care plans and risk assessments contain current, personalised information?
- 05What quality audits are now carried out, and how will you show families that identified problems are being fixed?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says the service was inspected over 30 January and 11 February 2020. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 March 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and individualised care, with some staff training needing renewal.
The inspection took place on 21 February 2017 and was announced 24 hours in advance. One inspector spoke with four people, four staff members and a healthcare professional. They checked care records, medicines records, staff training, recruitment, health and safety records, and how the home was monitored.
The home supported six people at the time, with space for up to seven people who had a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. Inspectors found enough staff, clear risk assessments, safe medicines support and good access to healthcare. People were supported to make choices, remain independent and take part in activities.
Inspectors found staff to be kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs. They also found the home well managed and connected with the local community. Some staff training had expired, and the ongoing refurbishment plan was not yet formalised, but the overall rating remained Good.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence. The atmosphere was described as calm and welcoming.
“The overall atmosphere in the home appeared calm, friendly, warm and welcoming.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to choose activities and hobbies, including sessions that helped one person improve their health and make new friends.
“People had busy and varied lives, and were supported to access a wide range of activities and hobbies” from the report
Good care planning
Support plans were easy to follow, included people's life histories and preferences, and were reviewed when needs changed.
“The plans were sufficiently detailed to guide staffs' care practice.” from the report
Some training had expired
needs fixingInspectors found that some staff training was no longer current. The providers said they were looking for new training resources.
“We saw that some staff training had recently expired.” from the report
Refurbishment plan not formalised
minorThe home had an ongoing programme of refurbishment and maintenance, but it had not been written into a formal development plan at the time of inspection.
“Although the registered provider had an on-going programme of refurbishment and maintenance, this was not formalised.” from the report
Minor medicines recommendations
minorA healthcare professional had made minor recommendations about medicines management. The report says the home had already put these recommendations into practice.
“They told us that they had made some minor recommendations and given advice to the registered manager about how some improvements could be made.” from the report
- 01What staff training had expired, and has all of it now been renewed?
- 02Has the formal development plan for refurbishment and maintenance been completed?
- 03What were the minor recommendations about medicines, and how do you check that the changes remain effective?
- 04How are people involved in choosing activities and reviewing their support plans?
- 05How do you make sure staffing remains sufficient when people are taking part in activities in the community?
This was an announced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with checks of care records, medicines, staffing, training, recruitment, safety and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Phoenix House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.