Brainkind Neurological Centre York

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We found staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity and understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care and treatment. Where possible staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessments and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided through surveys and engagement, however staff had not always involved families and carers appropriately.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Staff we spoke with across all disciplines spoke highly of each other and the support they received from one another to ensure patients’ needs were met.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were respectful, kind and responsive to needs. We observed staff engaging in conversation, assisting with meals and completing activities such as pool. Patients we spoke with were positive about staff and results from the patient survey corroborated this. When speaking with staff, they had strong knowledge and understanding of patients’ needs, spoke very respectfully about their recovery journeys and demonstrated empathy and understanding when patients were distressed or requiring additional support.

Staff made appropriate referrals to ensure needs were met, including any dietary, cultural, spiritual and emotional needs. Staff told us that they felt that they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences and patient safety was at the centre of their care. Staff were careful to maintain confidentiality and ensured consent was given to share information.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service was entirely accessible and based around adjustments for disabled patients – for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs. Bedrooms were specially designed to ensure they were spacious, tracking hoists were in place with assisted ensuite shower rooms and assisted baths. The service had equipment to meet the complex needs of patients.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain, and they were supported to raise concerns if they needed to. Information provided was available in easy read formats and alternative languages and this was determined on an individual basis. Staff ensured access to interpreters, and we observed a patient and interpreter engaging during our inspection. Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. This was monitored and reviewed by the speech and language therapy team. The service had a multi-faith room which was accessible to all patients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. The patient survey for 2025 showed that 5 out of 9 people said that overall, they were supported to be independent. Also 5 of 9 people said they could choose who was involved in their care and support, and patients we spoke to on the ward mostly reflected this.

Visiting times for family and friends were flexible and the service followed a visiting protocol to ensure that all people who wished to visit could do so in an adequate safe place and avoided mealtimes and planned therapy interventions, unless there was prior agreement that family would be involved in the sessions.

There was a range of appropriate equipment to support and maximise people’s independence and outcomes from care and treatment. Information was available on noticeboards informing people of their rights, feedback on care, the complaints process, an activity timetable, meal choices, advocacy and general well-being information.

Care plans demonstrated people were actively involved in decision making and were supported to make their own choices about their care. People were supported to maintain networks that were important to them and had access to family and friends while using the service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care planned for these accordingly. There was evidence in care records of multidisciplinary discussions around care where physical health and mental health were concerned. Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients and regular physical health monitoring was carried out using a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) system. Staff responded to needs by making appropriate referrals, monitoring health and involving partners in care.

There was robust evidence in care records that staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Care plans were detailed around this and data showed that the number of physical restraints had decreased in the last 12 months. Our structured observations of staff engaging with patients showed that staff were attentive and caring to patients needs.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff we spoke with told us that they did not always feel listened to or that concerns they had were acted on. Staff told us that they felt supported by their immediate team within the houses, but not always by management. Staff did tell us they felt able to raise concerns but were not confident that they would hear back from managers regarding any resolutions. One member of staff told us there is a lot of sickness and due to being a stressful workplace environment, people are not able to come in at times. This was reflected in sickness and turnover data which showed a sickness rate of 8% in December 2025 with a staff turnover rate of 44% in December 2025. Comparatively, the NHS average sickness absence rate in England was 5% in August 2025.

The Your Voice Survey completed by staff in the service showed that the service scored lower than the organisation average for ‘wellbeing’. Staff meeting minutes did not reference wellbeing as part of the agenda. The survey showed that staff did not always feel supported or valued. The service however did have a scheme for staff awards, where staff could nominate colleagues in a range of categories for recognition. The service also had access to a freedom to speak to up guardian and staff had access to confidential mental health and wellbeing support with Bupa as well as a financial support system for employees.

The service did have an action plan in place to address the lack of staff supervisions and appraisals. This included allocating protected time to staff to complete this with managers and a structured system with allocated supervisors.