Chislehurst Neuro Rehabilitation Centre

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

This was the first assessment of this service. We rated responsive as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery of care and treatment.

People received care and rehabilitation that reflected their individual needs, preferences and goals. Staff supported people to participate in meaningful activities and maintain links with their families and communities. Care was adapted to people’s communication and support needs.

People had opportunities to provide feedback and influence the service. A residents’ meeting had been introduced, and a “You Said, We Did” board showed how staff had responded to feedback. People and carers also described staff as approachable and responsive.

Discharge and future care were considered through multidisciplinary review and involvement from external professionals. However, some records did not clearly set out potential future placements, timescales and longer-term arrangements. Opportunities to practise one aspect of independent living were also limited because people could not wash their own clothes within the service.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service placed people at the centre of their care and rehabilitation and responded to changes in their individual needs.

Assessments informed personalised care plans that reflected people’s physical health, communication needs, risks, functional abilities and rehabilitation goals. Staff knew people well and adapted care and support to their individual circumstances.

People were supported to participate in activities reflecting their interests and goals. Examples included shopping, arts-based activities, chair yoga, church attendance, community outings and social events. Occupational therapy input supported people to develop and maintain daily living skills.

However, people did not have access to facilities to wash their own clothes. This limited opportunities for them to practise and develop this aspect of independent living as part of their rehabilitation. The provider was aware of the issue and was developing plans to address it.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service provided coordinated care and worked with families, advocates and external professionals to support continuity.

Admission criteria and pre-admission assessments helped the service establish whether it could meet people’s needs. Following admission, comprehensive assessments informed care plans and therapeutic interventions.

People received input from relevant professional disciplines according to their individual needs. The service worked with healthcare and social care professionals to coordinate care, obtain specialist advice and support continuing treatment.

Care plans were reviewed when people’s needs changed, and staff shared relevant information to support continuity. External professionals were involved where people required additional healthcare, social care or planning for future support.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service provided information about people’s rights, support and how to raise concerns.

Information about safeguarding, advocacy and speaking up was displayed within the service. Information was also available in alternative languages, including Polish.

Staff could access interpreting support where required and adapted communication to people’s individual needs. Advocacy was available to help people express their views and understand information.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service enabled people to provide feedback and contribute to decisions about how the service operated.

People were involved in discussions about how allocated funds should be spent. For example, people had requested an additional tablet device to support activities and communication.

A “You Said, We Did” board showed how the service had responded to people’s feedback. A residents’ meeting had been introduced in April 2026, providing a regular opportunity for people to discuss the service and make suggestions.

People and carers said staff were approachable and receptive to feedback. Carers described the service as open to their views and said they were involved in decisions about their relative’s care where appropriate.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to access care, rehabilitation and community opportunities according to their individual needs.

The service assessed communication, mobility and support needs and adapted care accordingly. Staff could arrange interpreting support and involve specialist professionals where people required additional assistance to participate.

People were supported to access activities within the local community that interested them, for example, attendance at a Valentine's event at the Royal Albert Hall. These activities promoted social inclusion and enabled people to maintain community links.

People also had access to advocacy and relevant external professionals to help them obtain support and participate in decisions.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff treated people fairly and adapted support to their individual circumstances.

People told us staff treated them with respect, and feedback about their experiences was positive. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the need to provide inclusive and non-discriminatory care.

Staff completed equality and diversity training and could access interpreting support when required. Care planning considered people’s communication, cultural and individual needs.

The service worked with advocates, social workers and healthcare professionals to support people to participate in decisions and access appropriate care and treatment.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff supported people to consider their future rehabilitation, care and support needs.

People’s rehabilitation goals and future needs were considered through care planning and multidisciplinary review. Staff supported people to develop daily living skills, increase independence and participate in community-based activities.

External professionals, including social workers and community services, were involved when planning future care and support. Staff considered whether people could return home with appropriate support or required a different specialist placement.

However, some discharge records did not clearly set out potential placement options, timescales or longer-term arrangements. This reduced assurance that future plans and the actions required to progress them were always clearly documented.