Chase Park Neuro 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider 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.

This service scored 68 (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 ensure people’s care plans gave clear and consistent information about their preferences and needs, and staffing levels limited how effectively staff could deliver person‑centred care.

We found some inconsistencies in people’s care records that did not always reflect their current preferences or needs. While staff had reviewed people’s documents, these reviews had not identified contradictory or incomplete information. For example, one person’s care plan recorded a preference for both an evening shower and an early morning shower, and there was also inconsistent information about their modified diet. These gaps meant staff did not always have clear guidance to support person‑centred care.

At times staffing levels did not always allow staff enough time to provide fully person centred care each day. As a result, people did not always receive person centred support, and people experienced more task based care due to the complexity of their needs. One staff member commented that at times people could be moved around with limited verbal interaction or opportunities for meaningful stimulation.

People had opportunities to express their wishes and aspirations, and the service accommodated these to support people’s wellbeing.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their localcommunities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We found evidence of initiatives to include people who might otherwise be excluded due to their condition and care needs. For example, the service used a Biazoon Air Flavour system for people who were no longer able to eat by mouth. This system enabled them to experience different tastes safely, helping them remain involved in meaningful sensory experiences.

Where people needed adjustments in communication formats, the provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information tailored to their individual needs.

The provider assessed people’s communication needs as part of their initial assessments and made adjustments so staff and people could communicate effectively. Alternative ways of communicating with people were detailed in care plans, such as using specific communication aids. People could access information in different formats such as different languages, easy read or large print, if needed.

Systems were in place to support staff, people and their relatives to raise concerns. However, Staff did not always feel the management team and provider acted appropriately on feedback given or concerns raised.

Complaints were recorded and monitored in accordance with the provider’s policy. Each record included the nature of the complaint, the response provided, the date of the response, and the actions taken to resolve the issue. The provider also captured any lessons learned to support continuous service improvement and ensure that emerging themes or risks were identified and addressed.

People were encouraged to provide feedback, share ideas, and raise any concerns regarding the care, treatment, and support they received. Regular meetings were held to provide additional opportunities for people to contribute suggestions to improve the service. Relatives confirmed that they were happy to raise concerns with the staff team.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment theyneeded when they needed it.

Staff understood how to access any specialist health or social care support people might need. The in-house multidisciplinary team ensured people received care and treatment in a timely manner. Care records showed involvement in people’s care from GPs, hospital specialists and other health and social care professionals.

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. Staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people.

However, there were inconsistencies in how staff approached and interacted with people across the service. Staff appeared to interact and communicate well with people in the rehabilitation unit, but we observed this approach was lacking within the villa unit, which accommodated people living with dementia, especially during mealtimes.

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.

People had care plans in place which reflected their own wishes for their end of life. Care plans included how they wished to be supported and who they would like to be with them. At the time of our assessment no one was receiving end of life care.