- Care home
The Dean Neurological Centre
Assessment report published 12 June 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 27 October 2025 to 14 November 2025. The assessment included a site visit and was carried out because of concerns about quality of care. The Dean Neurological Centre is a care home which supports up to 60 people. At the time of the assessment 53 people were receiving personal care.
The Dean Neurological Centre is a specialist rehabilitation and disability management service for people living with a range of different and complex neurological conditions. This includes acquired brain and spinal injuries and other neurological conditions where there is a need for tracheostomies and/or ventilators.
The provider was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment linked to medicines management. The medicines management processes had failed to protect people from the risk of receiving unsafe care and treatment. In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
The provider’s quality monitoring processes were extensive and supported service improvement, but they had not successfully identified the shortfalls identified during this assessment in relation to medicines management.
Concerns raised were investigated and responded to. There was an open culture, managers were visible and staff generally felt able to raise safety concerns and report poor practice. A multi-disciplinary approach supported people’s health and therapy needs.
Feedback from people, relatives and professionals varied considerably and while some factors impacting on people were out of the service’s control, some were not, such as the quality of care sometimes provided and people needing to wait for care.
People's experience of this service
People and relatives gave mixed feedback on their experience of the service, as did visiting professionals and commissioners. Several people referred to staff being kind, describing positive relationships in place with established staff who knew them well and who understood their needs. Although some told us their experience of care was inconsistent. People and relatives put this down to variable staff availability, knowledge and skills. Several people felt their expectations were not met in terms of care delivery and outcomes.
Most people told us they felt safe but relatives’ confidence in this varied. Several relatives felt some staff did not have the knowledge or experience to understand their family member’s needs or risks associated with their health. They had felt able to raise concerns, but this had not always resulted in the improvements they wanted.
Delays in receiving personal care were frequently referred to with some people saying they were left uncomfortable or without essential equipment. Some people referred to ongoing disturbances at night impacting on their ability to rest effectively. The majority had no concerns about how medicines were managed.
People and relatives said they were not always involved in care planning or goal setting, and those with communication needs sometimes felt overlooked. There were mixed views on how well people’s personal preferences were met. People and relatives felt consent was generally sought, although said this varied between staff.
Most relatives felt informed about events which involved their family member. Most people told us the food was okay and they were able to make choices. Some people were satisfied with the social activities available, although others felt they were limited.
Overall, while some people felt well cared for, many felt they experienced a service that did not consistently meet their personal needs or their expectations.