- Community healthcare service
Chislehurst Neuro Rehabilitation Centre
Assessment report published 29 September 2026
Contents
Ratings - Long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 14th May and 15th May 2026.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive assessment as part of our inspection programme.
During the assessment we spoke with 4 people using the service, 5 carers and 8 staff members. We reviewed the care and treatment records of 7 people and examined a range of documentation including risk assessments, medicines management records, rehabilitation plans and governance information. We also observed care delivery and inspected the environment and therapy areas.
At this assessment we found several areas of good practice.
People received specialist neurological rehabilitation delivered through a multidisciplinary approach. Assessments informed personalised care plans, rehabilitation goals and therapeutic interventions. Staff worked collaboratively to support people’s physical health, wellbeing and rehabilitation needs.
People and carers consistently described the service as caring, responsive and person-centred. One person told us, “I’m very happy here, this is my home. Staff are very kind.” We observed positive and respectful interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff knew people well and demonstrated a caring approach that promoted dignity, choice and independence.
People were supported to participate in meaningful activities, maintain community links and work towards rehabilitation goals. People also had opportunities to provide feedback about the service. Resident meetings and a “You Said, We Did” board demonstrated that people's views were listened to and acted upon.
Staff described a positive culture and spoke positively about local leaders. Leaders were visible and approachable and had recognised several areas requiring improvement.
We found some areas requiring improvement.
Governance arrangements did not always provide sufficient oversight of supervision, clinical documentation and the monitoring of improvement actions. Some multidisciplinary and discharge planning records did not consistently provide sufficient detail regarding people’s rehabilitation progress and future planning arrangements. While these concerns reduced assurance in some areas, they did not have a significant impact on people’s care, treatment or outcomes.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
The service delivered care within an appropriate legal framework and staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the principles of supporting people to make their own decisions wherever possible. Capacity assessments were completed where required, and records demonstrated involvement from relevant professionals, advocates and social workers in decision-making processes and best interests decisions.
Compliance for Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training was 95%, providing assurance that most staff had completed training relevant to their responsibilities. Staff demonstrated an understanding of consent, capacity and the importance of supporting people in the least restrictive way possible.
However, for some people subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, their records did not consistently demonstrate that their rights had been discussed with them or read to them. This reduced assurance that people were always provided with clear information about their legal status and the safeguards available to them.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 4 people and 5 carers. We also reviewed the care and treatment records of 7 people. Overall, feedback about the service was positive. People consistently described staff as kind, caring, professional and responsive to their needs. People told us they felt respected and supported and spoke positively about the relationships they had developed with staff.
Carers also spoke positively about the service. They told us communication was effective, care was personalised and families were involved in decisions about their loved one’s care and rehabilitation. Carers described staff as approachable and expressed confidence in the quality of care provided.
People were supported to participate in meaningful activities and maintain connections with the community. They were encouraged to contribute feedback about the service and had opportunities to be involved in decisions through resident meetings and other engagement activities.