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.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were managed, including visitors, social distancing, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted infection prevention and control inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted infection prevention and control inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted infection prevention and control inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted infection prevention and control inspection, although inspectors noted the registered manager was proactive about local authority recommendations.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic.
The home supports up to nine people with learning disabilities or autism. Nine people were living there when inspectors visited.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 December 2020. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control arrangements because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, shielding, social distancing, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and infection outbreaks safely. They also found that people were supported to understand pandemic changes using their individual communication methods.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall rating or full ratings for the five areas of care.
Visitor safety
Visitors were temperature checked, asked to disinfect their hands and required to complete a health declaration before entering.
“A visitors protocol was in place and everyone was temperature tested, completed hand disinfection prior to entering the home and completed a declaration of health.” from the report
Cleaning and monitoring
People using communal areas were monitored, and those areas were thoroughly cleaned after use.
“People who came into communal areas were monitored by staff and all communal areas cleaned thoroughly after use.” from the report
Infection control leadership
The manager followed local authority recommendations and infection control champions supported the work.
“The registered manager was pro-active in following recommendations from the local authority.” from the report
Communication support
The home used people's individual communication methods to explain why their daily routines had changed during the pandemic.
“The service used people's individual communication methods in its approach to supporting people with learning disabilities to understand why the pandemic meant changes to their day to day lives.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently checked and supported to prevent infection?
- 02How do infection control champions support staff now?
- 03How are people supported to understand changes to their daily routines using their individual communication methods?
- 04How does the home check that communal areas are cleaned after use?
- 05What arrangements are in place for testing and managing an infection outbreak?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 2021 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, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with end-of-life planning still needing attention.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 3 January 2020. One inspector met six people, observed care, spoke with relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received their medicines safely, and had support that promoted choice, independence and community involvement.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement and found one breach of regulation. The breach had been resolved by this inspection. Inspectors recommended that the home improve how it records people's end-of-life wishes.
Safe care and medicines
Risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, and staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns. The home had improved the safety and cleanliness of its premises.
“Improvements had been made to ensure the premises and equipment were safe, clean and properly maintained, mitigating risks to people's health and safety.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Relatives consistently described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed patient and considerate interactions, with dignity and independence promoted.
“We observed staff interacting positively with people, showing patience and consideration.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences and guidance for supporting them when anxious or distressed. People were helped to follow their interests and take part in community activities.
“People were supported to access the community, pursue their hobbies and interests and lead fulfilling lives.” from the report
Family involvement
Relatives were involved in care reviews and kept informed about changes. The home also supported people to maintain family relationships and make home visits.
“Relatives told us they were kept up to date about any changes in their family member's circumstances and health.” from the report
Improved management
Management had strengthened quality checks and acted on the concerns from the previous inspection. Staff said managers were available for support and guidance.
“Following our last inspection, the registered manager had ensured the quality assurance processes in place were thorough and robust to ensure the service met regulatory requirements.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingNo one was receiving end-of-life care, but no end-of-life care plans were in place. Inspectors recommended that people's preferences and choices should be recorded, reviewed and followed.
“We recommend the provider review their care planning process to ensure that people's preferences and choices for end of life care are recorded, regularly reviewed and upheld.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design and setting reduced the negative impact they might otherwise expect from its size.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure every new person has a formal pre-assessment before moving in?
- 02How do you record and regularly review each person's end-of-life wishes?
- 03How would you support my relative if they needed end-of-life care in the future?
- 04How do you make sure the size and layout of the home do not limit people's choice, privacy or independence?
- 05How are relatives involved when care plans are reviewed or people's needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions; the agency service was not receiving personal care, so CQC did not inspect that part. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 January 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.
Every inspection of Phoenix House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 November 2017.
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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £960 to £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.