People we spoke with were consistently positive about their experience at the service. One person said: “This place is amazing. The support is incredible and they have worked so hard to help me. I feel so positive about my life now.”

We spoke with people using the service and they confirmed that they had consented to their support. They understood what this meant, and understood that they could withdraw their consent. They described how they had signed their records to confirm they had given their consent.

Staff were provided with a range of training opportunities to ensure that their skills and knowledge remained up to date and that they understood the needs of people they were supporting.

People’s personal records, staff records and other records relevant to the management of the service were accurate and fit for purpose.

We identified that there were a number of concerns in relation to the provider’s compliance with cleanliness and infection control requirements.

We spoke with three people who used the service. They all told us they had been given detailed information about the type of service that was offered at Phoenix Futures Sheffield Family Service. Some comments made were; "The information given by Phoenix futures was good which helped me make the decision to come here," "I got a written guide which detailed all the information I needed and I was also able to speak to other people at the service, which helped greatly" and "We are fully involved in the drawing up of our support plans and risk assessments, because it is us who have to do the work to make positive changes in our lives."

People who used the service told us they were very happy with the support provided. They said their own key workers listened to them and worked with them to address their issues. They said the child care workers were very good with their children and had taught them a great deal about good parenting. They also told us they felt both themselves and their children were safe at the service and would feel confident raising any concerns or complaints with any member of the staff team. Some comments made were; "This place has turned my life around, I was not in a good place when I arrived here and now I can see light at the end of the tunnel" and "The structure of the programme has worked for me even though I didn't want to come here. I didn't think I had a problem until I came here and they have made me realise what a bad state I was in."

We sought information from health professionals who visit the service who confirmed they had no issues of concern about how the services supported people in their care.

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.