Moorlands Neurological 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

Staff worked well together and in collaboration with patients, their carers and external partners. The service had adopted a transdisciplinary team model which is considered best practice for neurological rehabilitation services. This model had not been fully embedded by staff but leaders were committed to promoting this approach and were continuing to develop staff knowledge and understanding around this. Staff provided person-centred care and completed robust care plans and assessments with patients. Staff encouraged and supported patients to provide feedback on their care and responded to feedback given. The service took concerns and complaints seriously and responded appropriately.

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.

Patients told us that they were encouraged to be involved in their care and treatment plan and knew who they could approach to request information from if needed.

Staff told us that they were confident that care plans enabled them to deliver person-centred care. If patients consented, family members would also be involved in the development and review of patient treatment plans. Staff completed various nationally recognised tools and assessments when developing treatment plans. Peoples needs were understood and people were able to engage fully in their treatment plans. They said staff were respectful and knew about their individual needs.

We observed staff engaging with patients in a person-centred way, adjusting their approach according to the patient’s needs.

Care plans were person-centred and patients were involved in their development and reviews. All patients had a patient passport which was very detailed and person centred which reflected patients preferences.

Patients had choice in their care and treatment and staff understood people's differences so they could be flexible when providing care.

All staff we spoke with were passionate and committed to the delivering good care. Staff provided one to ones with patients and built good therapeutic relationships. Patients and staff had created patient passports so staff knew patient's needs, likes and dislikes. Patients were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care and treatment from admission to discharge.

Partners told us that they had regular engagement with the provider and were invited to regular meetings and care programme approach meetings. They told us that staff at the service were proactive and open to feedback. Partners told us the therapy team worked hard to ensure that discharges were safe and patients and their families were fully prepared for integration back into the community.

Care records demonstrated people were actively involved throughout their care journey. We saw patients and carers were routinely involved in their care plans and multi-disciplinary meetings. Patient voice was well documented in patients own words and records documented when patients did not wish to be involved. Care records showed that patients were offered individual time with their named nurse, and where possible this relationship was maintained to provide continuity. Staff completed risk assessments for each patient on admission and reviewed this regularly, including after any incident

Patients knew how to request information regarding their care and treatment. Care plans and personal passports reflected patients wishes and individual needs.

Staff made sure patients could access information on treatment, local services, their rights and how to complain. All wards we visited contained notice boards in the patient areas with a variety of information tp support this. Patients were also given a welcome pack on admission that contained similar information. Staff said that they did not have any patients who required support from interpreters or signers but said that managers would access this if needed.

The provider responded quickly and aimed to provide an initial assessment within 48 hours of a referral. The majority of referrals had been appropriate for the service and staff provided all the relevant information required to patients, carers and families before admission.

Patients told us that they were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care and treatment and felt involved in their care. They felt listened to when they voiced their preferences or asked questions about their treatment or medication. People said they felt safe and knew how to raise concerns or give feedback on their care if they needed to. Staff ensured that any concerns were addressed. People were able to attend community meetings and had access to independent advocacy. One family member said the service had incorporated visiting times to suit their individual needs. Carers, friends and families could attend a carers forum every couple to months to help facilitate informal feedback and help them learn and understand more about the service.

Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them. Staff said that patients were able to raise concerns with any of the team and they would try to resolve as quickly as possible. Patients were supported to make complaints and information was on display around how to raise a concern or make a complaint.

Staff were visible and available for patients to speak to as and when needed. Staff were observed engaging with patients. Information was on display around how to raise a concern or make a complaint.

Managers investigated complaints and identified themes. No formal complaints had been made in the 3 months prior to our assessment but the provider kept a log of concerns and issues raised by families and patients. Managers made efforts to ensure that any issues were resolved and that patients and carers were given feedback. Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service. The provider used compliments to learn, celebrate success and improve the quality of care.

People told us that they were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care and treatment. They told us that they felt involved in their care and were listened to when they voiced their preferences and asked questions about their treatment or medication

Patients had access to a range of professionals including a dietician, psychologist, speech and language therapists, and occupational therapist. Staff worked as part of a trans-disciplinary team model where all professionals involved within the patients care are fully integrated in all aspects of the individuals care to deliver holistic rehabilitative care. Staff supported patients with specific religious and cultural needs. Specific equipment was also available for patients who had accessibility needs. Documentation was provided in an easy read format and staff told us that interprets would be made available if required.

Partners told us patients had access to a range of professionals and that the service had made staffing adjustments to the meet the needs of specific patients coming into the service. The provider ensured patients had appropriate support and access to services upon discharge and included community teams in the care progress and ward round meetings.

Patients were able to attend weekly community meetings. Patients were involved in making decisions about their care such as activities and meal choices and could raise concerns or issues such as maintenance issues or requests for equipment. Staff reviewed this information and logged actions following the meeting. Minutes were completed in an easy read format and clearly evidenced actions taken and issues resolved in a timely manner.

People’s human rights were protected; they were supported by staff who promoted equality and helped the overcome barriers to care. We saw that one patient was unhappy with the colour of their door and this was repainted to help them visually.

The service complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination. They had regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. The service provided a variety of food to meet the dietary and cultural needs of individual patients. Staff made sure patients could access information on treatment, local service, their rights and how to complain. Patients were asked if they had any unmet spiritual or cultural needs and this was documented in care plans.

Staff reviewed and discussed patient, carer and advocacy feedback, complaints and compliments in governance meetings. Patient feedback was collated and reviewed regularly, including any improvements made to service provision when required. The service was proactive in encouraging patient participation and had invited a patient representative to governance meetings. Patients were invited to be involved in the interview process for candidates.

People attended discharge planning meetings and contributed to decisions regarding their future care provision and discharge plans.

Staff told us processes were in place to ensure all relevant individuals were involved in planning and preparing for patient discharges. This included social care, community teams, housing, and family members if the patient was being discharged back home. Patients were involved in discharge planning meetings and a detailed plan was developed with the patient and partners. This ensured patient choices and preferences were always accounted for within discharge plans.

Care plans were rehabilitation focused, and discharge planning was referenced throughout. They referred to therapeutic practice, goal setting and focused on independence.