- Independent hospital
Frenchay Brain Injury Rehabilitation Centre
Assessment report published 16 June 2025
Contents
Ratings - Medical care (Including older people's care)
Our view of the service
Dates of on-site assessment 28 to 29 August 2024. Dates of desktop assessment between 29 August to 29 November 2024.
We carried out a responsive assessment of Frenchay Brain Injury Rehabilitation Centre in response to concerns shared with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) regarding patient care and the condition of the environment. The service provides medical care for patients with moderate to severe cognitive and behavioural disability following acquired brain injury. We also reviewed evidence submitted from staff at the service. We inspected 9 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions.
As this was a focussed assessment, we did not cover all the quality statements for each of the key questions in Medical care and services for people with acquired brain injury. Therefore, we did not rate the service and the overall location.
We identified 10 breaches of regulations relating to: person-centred care, consent, staff training, risk management, premises, equipment, processes, care and treatment, records and governance. The service was still failing to provide care and treatment in a safe way for service users.
The assessment was focused on the patient pathway for people who required medical care and services for people with an acquired brain injury. Therefore, the 2 assessment service groups have produced identical reports.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with patients, relatives and carers about the quality of care. People’s feedback about the service was mixed. Some people said staff treated patients with kindness, respect and dignity, and provided effective care and treatment. However, others told us that staff did not always involve them in their care plans, goal setting and choices. Some people were satisfied with the amount of therapy they received. Other people told us therapy sessions were sometimes cancelled. People did not always feel listened to and some people felt they did not receive enough personal care. Some people said communication regarding plans and interventions could be improved and some staff could be more empathetic. People told us rooms were adequate for visiting and the equipment they needed was provided. However, some people said equipment was sometimes difficult to use in the size of room available. Rooms were mostly kept clean. Some people told us staff were brilliant and helped with meals. However, people said there were not always enough staff to assist with food and call bells were not always promptly answered. Some people felt the choice of food was poor. People had choices around visiting times, activities and keeping in contact with families remotely as Wi-Fi permitted. Feedback received by Healthwatch reflected what people told us. This included not enough nurses leading to delays in attending to patients’ medical needs and poor communication between staff and relatives.