Hunters Moor Neurorehabilitation Centre

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

Caring – this meant we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion or consistently respect their privacy and dignity.

People told us their experience of care was inconsistent. One person said, “Care is hit and miss, carers say they will do things, but they don’t”. This indicated that people did not always experience reliable, attentive and compassionate care.

Another person told us, “Agency staff do not know people well so there is not a good relationship”. A further person said staff were, “Not as caring when they are agency” and explained that “A five-minute request can take up to an hour when agency staff are responding”. These comments demonstrated that heavy reliance on agency staff affected continuity, relationships and people’s experience of compassionate care.

Inspectors heard a staff member respond to repeated call bells by saying, “Why are they buzzing so much?” This language reflected frustration and did not demonstrate a consistently respectful or empathetic approach toward people requesting assistance.

Relatives also raised concerns about dignity. They reported delayed support after incontinence and that staff sometimes missed when people required support to maintain personal hygiene. This placed people at risk of compromised dignity.

However, there were examples of positive and compassionate interactions. Therapy staff demonstrated patience and encouragement when supporting people with rehabilitation. Interactions in therapy sessions were respectful and focused on building confidence and independence. Some people told us they felt respected by staff.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or consistently ensure care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences.

Relatives reported that they had to proactively seek information about care and rehabilitation plans following admission. This confirmed our findings that the provider did not consistently involve people and those important to them in planning care.

We reviewed care records and identified examples where information lacked personalisation or accuracy. In one case, information within a care plan appeared to relate to another individual. This reduced assurance that staff had reliable, individualised information to guide care delivery.

Risk documentation did not always clearly link identified needs to tailored strategies. For example, records identified emotional wellbeing concerns but did not consistently demonstrate personalised interventions to address these risks. This limited assurance that care reflected people’s individual strengths, needs and preferences.

However, rehabilitation planning demonstrated some person-centred practice. Therapy staff supported people to work toward individual mobility goals, and some people experienced measurable progress. These examples showed that elements of care were personalised, but this was not consistent throughout the service.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence or ensure they had consistent choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staffing pressures and delayed responses limited people’s ability to exercise control over their daily routines. People could not reliably access support at the time they requested it, which reduced autonomy and choice.

The service did not provide structured weekday activities. This limited opportunities for meaningful engagement and reduced support for people to pursue hobbies, interests or social stimulation outside of therapy provision.

Where therapy services were in place, staff promoted independence effectively. Therapy staff encouraged people to mobilise safely and regain confidence following illness or injury. These interventions supported recovery and demonstrated positive practice.

However, outside of structured rehabilitation input, people did not consistently experience a service that promoted independence, autonomy and meaningful choice.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not consistently respond to people’s needs in the moment or act quickly to minimise discomfort, concern or distress.

Inspectors observed call bells sounding for prolonged periods before staff attended. This meant people sometimes waited for assistance, including when requiring personal care or pain relief. Delays increased the risk of avoidable discomfort and distress.

Relatives described situations where people experienced emotional distress while waiting for support. This demonstrated that staff did not always anticipate needs or respond promptly to prevent escalation.

The provider did not monitor response times or demonstrate oversight of call bell data to ensure timely intervention. This demonstrated that leaders did not have systems in place to ensure people’s immediate needs were consistently prioritised.

However, therapy staff responded appropriately during structured rehabilitation sessions and demonstrated attentiveness to people’s physical needs during those activities.

The provider did not always promote staff wellbeing or consistently support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Most staff members we spoke with told us they did not feel supported by leaders. Not all staff supervision records we reviewed were up to date. One staff member reported they were not receiving supervision at appropriate intervals to discuss how they were progressing in their role. This demonstrated a lack of consistent supervision and managerial oversight.

Staff described workload pressures that affected morale and wellbeing. One staff member told us they felt, “Stressed out due to work overload”. This indicated that staffing levels and deployment did not always support staff to work safely and effectively.

Staff also told us that heavy reliance on agency workers affected team cohesion and communication. One staff member reported that the over-reliance on agency staff meant communication was poor and, “We could not always be as person centred as we should be”. This demonstrated a direct impact of workforce instability on people’s experience of care.

The service relied heavily on agency staff, which reduced continuity within the staff team and affected team cohesion and communication. Permanent staff told us this created additional pressure as they were often required to support or guide temporary staff who were unfamiliar with the service, people’s care plans and working practices. This increased workload for established staff and reduced opportunities for consistent team working. Leaders acknowledged staffing pressures and recognised that frequent management changes had affected stability within the service. Governance and leadership systems did not consistently promote staff wellbeing or ensure staff felt valued and supported in their roles. As a result, workforce pressures affected the consistency and quality of person-centred care delivered.