Nottingham Neurodisability Service Hucknall

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

We assessed 1 quality statements in the effective key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for the key question remains good. People were supported by staff who knew their needs well. People’s care and treatment was effective due to their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs being assessed with them. Peoples care plans were kept up to date with any assessments completed in a timely manner.

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 we spoke with told us staff knew how to support them. A person we spoke with told us how staff had supported them in their recovery to get regain mobility, and told us specialist input from the therapy team at the service had increased their independence. We received positive feedback from relatives who told us they felt staff knew their needs well. A relative we spoke with said, “The reason my [relative] is there, is because staff know what they need.”

Staff knew people’s needs well. Staff knew how to access care records and ensured they referred to specialist professionals when needed. The service had a dedicated therapy team including a physiotherapist, occupational therapist and speech and language therapist which meant people needing specialist intervention were reviewed in a timely manner. Staff were knowledgeable about the complex needs of people. Staff told us about the care they provided to people requiring ventilation support to ensure they were able to maintain their airway. Staff told us they were given time to provide the care people needed.

Care plans documented people’s risks and needs. However, there was a mixture of paper and electronic care plans. For example, support plans were electronic but risk assessments were paper based. This meant there was a risk information may get missed. We found support plans to be reflective of people’s needs. This meant staff had guidance to support people safely. National assessment tools were used, to understand people’s needs and how best to support them. For example, Waterlow and MUST risk assessments were completed for all people. People had an oral healthcare assessment in place to ensure people maintained their oral health. People’s communication needs were recorded and understood by staff. This allowed staff to communicate with people, to have a clear understanding of people’s needs.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.