Rebound Healthcare Limited

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs. The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care and receiving and acting on complaints.
 

This service scored 32 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plan information did not fully reflect physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act, as this information had not been included. For example, religion or marital status was not recorded. There was no life history about the person to enable staff to support them in a person-centred way. For example, previous employment, family relationships, hobbies, interests, likes and dislikes.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The provider was not operating from their registered location. Care plan information did not detail where a person lived. Therefore, it was unclear in what area the provider was operating and if they understood the local community.
 

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

The service user guide gave details of a temporary office location, however, this was not accessible during the assessment. The provider was not operating from their registered location. The service user guide gave inaccurate information about the type of service provided. Stating it provided support for people with a learning disability or a mental health condition. The service was not registered to support people with these needs. The provider could not demonstrate the information detailed in their service user guide, such as staff training, internal audits, spot checks, service user reviews, staff supervision, incident and complaint analysis was being completed.

The provider did not demonstrate information for people was supplied in line with the accessible information standard, met data protection handling requirements or gave details in line with consumer rights best practice around contracts and charges.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider did not demonstrate an effective and accessible system for the management of complaints. The providers policy stated complaints could be made, ‘verbally, in writing, electronically, or through an advocate.’ However, the address on the complaints policy was not the providers registered location. The stated address had not been accessible to people, due to no one being at this address since 15 June 2026. There was no information or an email address of where a person would send a complaint electronically. The provider’s policy did not detail how to escalate complaints.
 

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The care plan for people did not give enough information about the support required. For example, if they had any ongoing health conditions or who else supported them to access to care and treatment.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. The provider did not demonstrate their systems supported people to receive equity in experiences and outcomes of their care.

People were not 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. Care plan information did not contain details about the persons future wishes around their care or end of life wishes.