Pine House Rehabilitation Unit

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. We assessed one quality statement from this key question. Patients were at the centre of how their care was planned and delivered. There were systems in place such as community meetings which provided patients with opportunities to raise any issues they encountered in a formal way. They told us they had no concerns raising issues. Patients could access advocacy services.

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Patients that we spoke to did not raise any concerns about facing any inequalities in relation to their experiences and outcomes in the service.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Staff and managers advised how patients could raise concerns or highlight any areas they felt they may be experiencing inequality in their outcomes and experiences, such as through community meetings or feedback forms. Managers gave examples of where adjustments had been made or were already in place to support patients who may have accessibility or mobility needs. At the time of the assessment, the service had one patient who spoke more than one language. Managers advised that this had been explored with the patient as to their preference for which language they would like to be communicated with. Staff and managers were aware of how to access translation or interpretation services if they were required.

We reviewed some of the provider’s policies and observed that considerations had been made to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. These were documented in the policies, for example, the duty of candour policy had separate sections to advise what actions could be taken to support patients with a cognitive impairment; learning disabilities; language or cultural considerations; or communication needs. Similarly, in the fire policy and emergency plan, it acknowledged that the service would have people with a disability, impairment or who may be unable to react quickly in an emergency, noting that all patients would have a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP). Whilst all patients had PEEPs, on the day of the onsite assessment they were not being stored in a way that could be easily accessed in an emergency. Advocacy services were available within the service and information was given to patients on how they could access these services. Staff received mandatory trained in equality and diversity, along with training regarding specialist areas such as acquired brain injury, learning disability and autism.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.