Oakwood Acquired Brain Injury Rehabilitation Service

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People had a variety of care plans which were detailed but not always personalised, fully completed, or updated. For example, people had a ‘relationship record’ which could be used to record all relationships that were important to them, but these were not being completed consistently despite being identified as an area of shortfall during a check completed. Other care records were almost entirely task focused and did not reflect information about people’s preferences for how they were cared for. One relative told us, “When [family member] first moved in they were asked if they preferred male or female staff to attend to her. Most are female [as preferred], there has been an odd occasion when it was a male. But one morning early, a young lad was coming to get them out of bed. [Family member] didn’t know who it was and felt very uncomfortable with this.”

Care records did not always reflect how person centred care was being provided. We observed, and people feedback that, with the exception of therapies, there were limited activities and access to the community. The provider was in the process of addressing this and asking staff to engage more in supporting people to access activities and the community.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service had systems in place to support the continuity of care which included the use of hospital passports to ensure key information was shared in an emergency. There was evidence staff worked with people to ensure they accessed the therapy support they needed and referrals were made to doctors and nurses where this was needed. Some feedback we received indicated there were some shortfalls in organisation to support people to access external appointments where this was needed and the provider has ongoing work to improve communication and the planning and organisation of each day.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People raised concerns about how the service provided information and communicated with families. One relative commented, “Communication is the biggest issue, you can’t get totally up to date with it.” We observed white boards were available in the communal lounge and people’s rooms which had some detail about people’s days, such as which staff member was allocated to support them or appointments. However, feedback we received indicated these were not consistently maintained with one relative commenting, “There is a board in [family members] room with the date on it. It’s up to date with the bare minimum. It’s inconsistent who is working with them.”

There had been several changes in the management and leadership of the service and it was not evident that families were kept up to date on any changes. The provider had plans in place to ensure communication was more effective with people and their families and this needed time to be implemented and embedded.

The interim manager understood the principles of accessible information and would seek additional support from speech and language therapy where additional support was felt to be needed.

The provider supported people to raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in day to day decisions about their care.

People told us they felt able to share their views with the staff team. We noted where complaints had been documented, these had been addressed. There was limited evidence as to how the service encouraged feedback from people, either through surveys, or feedback meetings. However, a resident of the day process was being introduced to ensure regular opportunities to feedback were in place.

Staff meetings were undertaken where areas for action were discussed. Daily meetings had recently been commenced to discuss any issues in a timely way.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Feedback from people and families raised concerns that people were not always supported to access externally scheduled appointments. However, people were supported to engage with the therapy team on a regular basis and people’s rehabilitation was generally progressing.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

We noted examples where staff had advocated strongly for people to ensure they received the care and support they needed. People felt well supported by the regular team of staff who were committed to supporting people to reach their goals and become more independent.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were supported to plan for their future with the aim of rehabilitation and regaining the ability to live independently. A therapy team were on site providing support and intervention on a daily basis which including speech and language therapy, physiotherapy, occupation therapy and neuropsychology. People were supported to move into more independent living accommodation. Care for people approaching the end of their life was not provided in this service.