Blackheath Brain Injury Rehabilitation Centre

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection, while positive developments were observed in care delivery and outcomes, the overall rating remains requires improvement due to the way scores are determined under the Single Assessment Framework (SAF).

The provider had made progress since the last inspection. At our previous inspection, we advised the provider to ensure patients were confident in using mobility aids. At this inspection, staff assessed patients’ physical needs and involved occupational therapy in the care process. Staff had been trained in the use of equipment such as hoists and did not use equipment they were not trained to operate. During our visit, we observed no patients requiring support with mobility aids. The quality of meals had improved, with menus tailored to dietary needs and allergies. Meal planning was strengthened through input from dietitians, kitchen staff, chefs, and speech and language therapists, and patient feedback was gathered through regular catering meetings. Staff completed nutritional screening on admission and supported patients with healthy eating and lifestyle choices. There was also progress in promoting smoking cessation and physical health through personalised activity timetables, including physiotherapy, tai chi, and exercise sessions. Multidisciplinary working was evident through daily handovers, governance meetings, and joint discharge planning with external stakeholders. Staff supported patients throughout their admission and recovery, and there were links with a local GP and therapy providers. Patients received timely physical health support, and staff responded promptly to emerging health concerns.

However, some patients reported that they had not received a copy of their care plan or felt only partially involved in its development. Although records showed patients were offered opportunities to participate, implementation was inconsistent. Access to advocacy services was limited, with most patients unaware of how to access support, despite the provider reporting that advocacy was available. Wards also lacked accessible information about treatment and patient rights, reducing opportunities for patients to engage independently in their care. Therapy services continued to experience staffing vacancies across all disciplines. While this had not yet negatively impacted patient care, recruitment remained ongoing. Some staff also reported challenges in working with other internal teams, although overall collaboration was observed to be effective.