Fernhill Neurological Centre-Inspire Neurocare (Farnborough) Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People told us they were involved in initial and on-going assessments. Records were person centred and reflected what was important to the person.

The registered manager told us they assessed each person in their home before they moved into the service. Pre-admission assessments we viewed were comprehensive. They contained details of the person, their likes and dislikes, health conditions and all aspects of their lives. Based on this, a plan was devised on how to best support the person. Care plans were developed from the initial assessments and were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed, recorded and met. Most people were happy with the food on offer. One person told us, “The food is lovely, there’s nothing I don’t like.” However, one person commented, “One of the worst things about being here, is that there is no dietary choice, I can order in, and I sometimes do. I don't go to the dining room it really isn't my scene” and “The chefs are nice, and I'm sure very good, but the food just isn't for me.” We fed this back to the registered manager who told us, “We have a dietician who assesses each resident individually and works closely with the head chef in creating new menus. The menu is seasonal and is changed quarterly. A draft menu is shared for comment with the residents prior to its implementation and there is a quarterly food forum whereby feedback is sought, and tastings take place for new dishes that are being considered. New recipes which score more highly are included on the new menus. Relatives are consulted where residents are not able to provide their own feedback.”

We saw evidence that the chef met each new person upon admission to discuss their likes, dislikes and allergies. There was a food logbook available for people to provide real time feedback to the kitchen regarding individual meals.

The provider had recently introduced a monthly meal experience meeting to address all things related to food and drink. This was attended by nursing, speech and language, occupational therapy, dietetics, kitchen staff and the registered manager.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home, there was a very good culture and supportive teamwork. One staff member told us, “We are consulted all the time. We have meetings about everything, new ideas etc. We have heads of department meetings every 6 weeks. We have a suggestion box which actually gets looked at and we get everything we ask for.”

People told us staff worked well together and communicated with them well in order to meet their needs.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. Care records contained detailed information about people’s health conditions and how these might affect people. There were regular visits from health care professionals involved in people’s care, and communication between them and the staff and management was effective. One person told us, “I saw the OT (occupational therapist) yesterday, so that was nice.”

Health care professionals said the staff and management team worked closely with them and communication was good. One healthcare professional who visited the service 4 hours weekly told us, “I think they are doing well. I offer advice on optimising people’s conditions and address particularly pain management, any procedures they might need. If people need advice on neurological conditions, I can advise on that. I liaise with people and families. We work together. I advise the therapists also. My role is to support and advise. I think people are well looked after here. The staff to patient ratio is very good. Their needs are attended to very well. There is always somebody available. I have not seen anything of concern. They do their utmost best for each person."

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There was evidence of regular reviews and action being taken immediately following any changes to people’s health needs. The service worked closely with healthcare professionals who knew people well and followed their advice to help meet people’s changing needs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People told us staff asked for their consent and involved them in decisions about their care and support. They said their choices were respected.

The staff received training in the principles of MCA. Their comments included, “I never presume the person cannot consent. People are always offered choice and I ask for consent before supporting people” and “We assess capacity and not lack of capacity. We try to help people to understand and to use the least restrictive alternative if we have to make decisions for them. We also help people to express themselves."