Frenchay Brain Injury Rehabilitation Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We did not rate responsive as this was a focused assessment and we did not cover all quality statements within this key question. We found some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to systems and processes. We reviewed the equity in experiences and outcomes quality statement for the responsive key question. The service had processes to facilitate equity in accessible communication with clear advocacy support provided. The admissions flowchart ensured a clear process was followed and it was fair for all patients being admitted. Most patients had Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (RESPECT) forms. However, some staff were unable to locate them. There was an increased risk of a poor outcome during an emergency if people did not have a form or if staff did not know where to find them. Outcomes were routinely collected and monitored however, they were not always used for service improvement.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

People told us they were satisfied with the therapy they received working towards their outcomes. However, some people told us their experiences were disappointing when therapy sessions were cancelled, or staff forgot to collect them. They suggested there should be improved communication between teams to ensure all patients received the care they needed for fair outcomes. People said discussions regarding care plans were held monthly or at certain milestones in patients’ care. However, they did not always see their care plans and were not always involved to make them person-centred.

Information about the outcomes of patients’ care and treatment (both physical and mental) were routinely collected and plans were monitored. Leaders told us that complex discharges had long planning timeframes including meetings with relatives and carers, internal and external teams and services, to meet people’s needs. Discharge processes varied regionally which could cause delays to discharge, dependent on where patients lived. Leaders said they had processes to ensure patients had RESPECT forms. However, staff did not always know where to access the forms. There was an increased risk of a poor outcome during an emergency if people did not have a form or if staff did not know where to find them. Staff told us that teams communicated well with each other to provide person- centred care which was equal for all patients.

The service had a referral flowchart for the admission process. This included receiving referrals and discussing if patients were suitable for admission. RESPECT forms were held for some patients. However, not all staff knew where to find them. Data showed that most formal complaints were responded to within the timeframe. There were processes for the service to identify and meet the communication needs of people. There was an Accessible Information Communication Policy. This ensured people were provided with information in accessible and appropriate formats for people who had impairment or sensory loss. However, some people told us staff sometimes failed to understand patients’ communication needs and spoke to families instead. The service had access to Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs). and Mental Health Advocates (IMHAs) for people who required support. Information regarding advocacy support was displayed in the unit. Outcomes of people’s care and treatment was routinely collected and monitored electronically. However, this data was not always used to inform service improvement.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.