Inspire Neurocare Worcester

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 service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment we found the provider had made significant improvement and the rating has changed to good. People and most relatives knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to, and information was available in an accessible way. Care plans were followed consistently and demonstrated people and relative involvement. The service gathered feedback from relatives and staff through regular service surveys and meetings. People had end of life plans in place, which detailed their wishes and preferences.

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.

People received person centred care, which was tailored around their specific needs, choices and wishes. We saw improvements had been made with care planning, people and families were now more involved and had assisted in developing specific healthcare guidance for their loved ones. For example, hydrotherapy guidance.

Staff knew people’s needs well and understood what person-centred care meant. During our discussions staff were able to share with us how people had progressed with their rehabilitation journeys, and what involvement they had to assist them. For example, one person had recently improved their mobility and was able to take some steps for the first time, another person had been able to hug their family member. Staff told us they felt emotional about people achieving these goals.

We observed staff providing person centred care in line with people’s needs and wishes. Staff provided options to people about what they would like to do and where they would like to eat their meals. Some people chose to eat in their rooms with their own food choices they had purchased with staff. People had choices about their nighttime routines, and where they chose not to be disturbed, risk assessments and provisions had been made to ensure they were safe.

People’s care and treatment was well co-ordinated, documented and shared between the service and healthcare professionals. Appropriate referrals had been made where people needed them. People were supported to attend a place of worship to practice their faith.

Leaders of the service liaised with healthcare professionals regularly, and information had been updated in people’s care plans. We saw evidence of continued communication where people had attended appointments, and queries had been raised by families about people’s future care needs. For example, the therapy team had worked alongside a healthcare professional to provide support to families when planning a person’s future, after their rehabilitation.

External professionals spoke positively about the continuity of care provided by the service. One person told us,” Excellent transitions, my client has settled very quickly. They have carried out a full clinical assessment and have been proactive in making the changes recommended by the therapy and clinical team”.

People’s care and treatment was well co-ordinated, documented and shared between the service and healthcare professionals. Appropriate referrals had been made where people needed them. There were processes in place to ensure information about people’s care needs was shared if they left the service to go on a home visit or to hospital. Where people’s needs were more complex, the provider made provisions for staff to attend or stay at hospital to ensure they received the continuity of care needed to meet their needs. People were supported to access the local community to attend the cinema, go out for coffee and purchase personal items.

Most people and relatives spoke positively about how the service provided them with information. One relative said,” We have regular relative meetings and surveys”. Another person said, “We can use the suggestion box provided, if I cannot attend the meeting, they will send me the minutes”.

Staff and leaders of the service supported people to use a variety of communication methods to support their individual needs. Some of these included electronic communication devices.

The provider was meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). People’s communication needs were understood and supported. This was demonstrated in their care plans which were detailed and bespoke to the person.

People and most relatives told us they felt listened to. One person told us, “They often asked for your views, they do their own surveys. They listen, I’ve spoken to the manager, they are willing to listen and improve”.

The provider held regular supervisions and staff meetings, where staff could share any ideas or concerns.

Leaders held regular relative meetings and sent out surveys to obtain their opinions. Leaders told us people often attended alongside their family members. However, there was no records to evidence people’s attendance. Following our visit, managers said they would begin to keep accurate records.

People were able to access care and treatment when they need to in a timely manner. Relatives told us they were aware the local GP visits regularly.

Managers and staff told us they advocate and support people to access care, support and treatment when people needed it. This was evidenced in people’s care plans. Staff were aware of people’s needs, including their protected characteristics.

Health professionals were provided with the necessary information. External professionals told us the service made appropriate referrals in a timely manner and communicated well.

The service worked in partnership with other professionals to meet people’s needs. Referrals were made to other external professionals when required, for example neurologists, communication services and GPs. People’s care plans contained information about their wishes in relation to their social, cultural and spiritual needs. These included people's sexuality and preferred daily lifestyle choices.

People and relatives did not raise any concerns with equity in experiences and outcomes.

The provider understood their responsibilities around ensuring equity in people's experience and outcomes. Staff had completed equality, diversity and inclusion training. Staff told us, and we observed people had access to communal rooms, outdoor spaces within the home environment. The provider understood the inequalities some people face with complex healthcare needs and tried to ensure they were supported to access and integrate into the local community.

Staff and leaders had access to the providers policies and completed mandatory training courses which safeguarded people and their protected characteristics. Protected characteristics are specific attributes safeguarded against discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. These include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

Care plans demonstrated people’s end of life wishes and choices had been considered with the person and their relatives, where appropriate. People’s goals with their rehabilitation had been promoted and reviewed to ensure they were provided with the correct support and therapy to achieve good outcomes.

There were no people receiving end of life care at the time of our assessment. However, staff were aware of people’s advanced wishes and specific choices in their end-of-life care plans. Where people and relatives had chosen not to discuss their wishes, this had been documented and respected.

There were systems in place to record people’s advanced wishes. These included funeral arrangements and people’s choices regarding resuscitation in the event emergency treatment. Staff had spent time discussing people's wishes with them and, where appropriate, with their families.