Brainkind Neurological Centre York

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not moved between wards except for their benefit.

Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave and there was evidence of ongoing planning for discharge, although challenges with sourcing placements within the community were discussed with leaders. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. The service met the needs of all patients, – including those with a protected characteristics. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care records showed that plans were person centred, individualised and recognised patients’ own goals. Staff used nationally recognised tools, rating scales and assessments to inform care. Clinical staff received ‘my plan’ training as part of their induction to ensure they understood and were competent in the care planning process. Care plans had a ‘my plan’ narrative which contained actions and checklists to help promote individualised care.

Patient feedback told us that they had choice, support from staff to complete activities and that staff were caring and nice. One patient told us that staff were respectful of their choices. Psychology staff completed neuropsychological assessments and speech and language therapists ensured patients’ communication needs were considered throughout, to ensure care was tailored to individuals.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. When appropriate, staff ensured that patients had access to opportunities to develop independent living skills, engage in meaningful activity and socialise with others. Staff encouraged this in a variety of ways. We observed staff supporting patients at the café located on the communal ground floor of the service and this was observed to be a positive experience for patients.

Information from stakeholders showed that they were invited to meetings about patient care, updates were provided and recorded in meeting minutes and care was joined up. Managers had regular engagement with stakeholders and funders, inviting them to meetings and care programme approach meetings.

Care records demonstrated that people were actively involved throughout their care journey. Patient voice was well documented in their own words and records documented when people did not wish to be involved.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information to family members of patients. At our last inspection, carers we spoke with described excellent communication from staff, however all carers we spoke with during this assessment described difficulties with getting in touch with the service via telephone. Family members we spoke with did not always feel involved in care and felt that they were not always kept up to date with changes in their loved one’s health or changes in need and said they were not always invited to care planning meetings. Some family members we spoke with had not seen care plans, others felt they had to push to be involved in developing these.

However, staff made notifications to external bodies as needed and where legally required and information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. These were accessible to staff on electronic tablets and staff were trained in data protection. The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard and ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain.

The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group including easy read for those who required this. The service also made information leaflets available in different languages spoken by patients.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls; however the service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The total number of complaints in last 12 months was 11. We reviewed the 11 complaints made and found 2 of these were upheld, 6 were partially upheld, and 3 were still being investigated. We did not find any themes or trends within the complaints raised- and complaints that had been raised had received thorough responses. Patients we spoke with knew how they could raise complaints and did not feel afraid to do so. There was also information on wards available to patients on how this could be done.

Staff supported patients to make complaints when required and ensured patients’ voices were heard. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately and in a timely manner. Staff we spoke with told us they did not always here feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints but told us they felt managers acted on the findings.

We noted that the complaints policy had a review date of 15 November 2025 and had not been reviewed or updated since then. The 2025 patient survey showed that 84% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed they could raise a concern, complaint, or suggestion, this was lower than the previous year, similarly less people reported that they knew how their concern, complaint or suggestion had been dealt with, with only 69% agreeing. In response to the decline in satisfaction this was an area that was identified by the service to improve upon as part of their programme of ‘Better Together’ co-produced projects. The service also created the role of a feedback advisor for patients to support people individually to understand the procedures and what they could expect.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met and the service was designed and tailored entirely for accessibility. Wheelchair users were placed in bedrooms that had accessible hoists and adaptations. Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, for example, people with mobility issues were provided with walking aids and shower chairs and full physiotherapy and occupational needs assessments were carried out and reviewed on a regular basis.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance of the local acute hospital. The responsible clinician who was based at the service one day per week was accessible via email, while a specialist doctor provided 4 days cover to ensure a doctor was available at other times during the working week. Out of hours arrangements ensured an on- call medic would be available.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care – for example, Section 117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services, and discharges were well planned with multidisciplinary involvement. Discharges were only delayed due to clinical reasons, such as risks in relation to moving into a community placement. We reviewed 3 recent discharges that were of high quality, informative and put patient need first.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People’s human rights were protected during admission. Staff worked within legal frameworks to ensure this. We did not identify any barriers to care, support and treatment. The service complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination. Staff considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

Staff supported people with specific religious and cultural needs. The service provided food to meet the dietary and cultural needs of individuals. Staff made sure people could access information on treatment, local services, their rights and how to complain. People were asked if they had any unmet spiritual or cultural needs, and this was documented in care plans. Interpreters were used to support people with language barriers.

Staff reviewed and discussed feedback, complaints and compliments in governance meetings. People’s feedback was collated and reviewed regularly, including any improvements made to service provision when required.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were 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. We reviewed care records which demonstrated that discussions around Do Not Attempt CPR decisions were had with patients and, where appropriate, family members.

Care plans also reflected what patients might need if requiring care in another hospital setting and what support would be required. Discharge reports were detailed and specific. These were completed collaboratively between the multidisciplinary team and took into account patients’ specific goals and wishes for the future. Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies are involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs, including social workers, GPs, occupational therapists and psychiatry.