Frenchay Brain Injury Rehabilitation Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported, mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

This key question has been rated as good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed staff treating patient with kindness. Staff listened to patients and gave them time to respond. However, we also saw one example of staff talking about other patients who were not present in front of the patients they were caring for, which did not maintain confidentiality.

Comments from patients were positive and included ‘staff are glorious. Everyone is happy and positive’, ‘some go above and beyond to help’ and ‘its lovely, very good food’. One patient told us that when they were discharged, a member of the therapy team accompanied them home.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Staff took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients’ care and treatment was individualised to meet their needs. Care and treatment were planned with the patients and their families.

There was a multi-faith room for patients and staff to access. However, the cabin was less accessible for people with mobility issues and patients we spoke with were unaware of the option to use the space. Staff told us most patients preferred to pray in their bedrooms as it was more private.

We saw 1 patient who had specific information about how staff should approach them, introduce themselves and allow time for the patient to respond. Some patients had introduction sheets on the rooms of their door which included likes, dislikes and preferences to help staff tailor care to their individual needs.

Staff met with the next of kin and people that mattered to the patient to understand their lifestyle, what was important to their relatives and to them, and what could be implemented to meet these needs.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

When possible, patients were supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care. Relatives were involved and kept up to date about developments and expectations. Staff met with families after 5 days of admission to understand their lifestyle, what was important to them and discuss expectations. However, some people told us that these meetings had not always happened in a timely manner.

There was a quieter space that could be used for patients who required this, especially during mealtimes. Patients and relatives had access to a kitchen to make drinks and snacks. There was a shop once a week for patients to buy additional items.

Non-verbal patients could use other methods to communicate, such as blinking and communication cards.

Feedback from patients included that they liked to sit and have social time without the expectation of something happening.

We saw staff discussing medication and carrying out observations with patients who made choices about their care needs. Patients and relatives we spoke with told us they felt involved in their care and decisions and could ask questions.

There were activities planned for patients throughout the week. These included dog visits, table tennis, walks and baking. We observed a karaoke activity where patients and family members joined in with each patient given an opportunity to select a song. We observed staff talking to patients in the garden and offering drinks and blankets when needed.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Patients and relatives had the opportunity to speak with the nursing and medical team caring for them. Staff kept people informed throughout the episode of care.

Patients told us staff were mostly responsive, but they sometimes had to wait for call bells to be answered. We observed call bells operating for extended periods before staff attended. These were sometimes switched off without staff addressing patients’ requests for several further minutes after the bell had been deactivated.

One patient told us they had been unable to enjoy reading and gardening due to their glasses going missing. This had been reported by the patient and their relative but was not resolved in a timely manner.

The provider’s audit data showed most call bells were answered within 5 minutes, with average response under 3 minutes and emergency response under 1 minute.

Therapy staff told us they could adapt work surface and cupboards to meet patients’ needs.

The service generally cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centered care.

There were mixed reviews from staff in relation to their working experience. Some told us they felt respected, listened to and were able to raise concerns and suggestions. Others felt there was favouritism amongst staff, especially from leaders.

Leaders had a visible presence and staff told us they could approach them with concerns. Staff mainly felt supported by management. Some felt they could be more visible.

Staff told us there was an open-door policy to encourage staff to share ideas and work closely together. They had shared ideas about training and implementing a sensory room. Leaders told us these suggestions were in the process of being implemented. There was an anonymous box where they could leave comments and suggestions. However, staff told us they did not always receive feedback about issues raised. Staff had an opportunity to give feedback on a ‘You said’ form and the service responded with ‘We did’ actions. Staff had asked for more acknowledgement for the work they carried out, an away day, access to training, meetings and feedback. Leaders told us they had implemented recognition awards in response to this. There was a board in a communal area where You Said, We Did topics were displayed.

Some staff told us they worked shifts around family commitments. There was a monthly staff breakfast to allow staff to discuss any issues and raise concerns and suggestions. However, some staff told us these sessions did not always feel accessible to staff working part time or on night shifts.

The clinical skills team developed specific training and guidance for staff such as catheter care, venepuncture and cannulation.

There were several human resources policies available including, conduct at work, conflict of interest, reasonable adjustments and staff equality, diversity and inclusion policy.

During the assessment, we observed nurses were not included in senior meetings attended by ward managers and therapy staff. The meetings were therapy led, but not integrated with nursing staff. This meant there was a risk plans were not always translating and embedding across the wider team.

There was a newsletter emailed out with updates for staff to read and an online chat group to share information about staff achievements. Staff could nominate other staff for awards.

The staff survey carried out in April 2025 had a 46% response rate. The survey showed 58% of staff would recommend the service as a place to work and 72% would recommend to family and friends as a place for care. Eighty-six percent of staff felt there was good teamwork and 87% of staff felt confident to meet the care needs of patients.