We previously visited this service on 28 September 2012. We found some omissions in accuracy of care recording that could have placed patients at risk of their care needs not being met. We asked the provider to send us an action plan of how they intended to make the necessary improvements, which they have done.

During this inspection we met a number of patients, and spoke with five in depth. Their feedback indicated they were satisfied with the standard of care they received. One patient said they felt they were “very privileged “to have been chosen from the acute hospital to come to the unit. Another patient said, “I’ve had very good treatment to date. I can’t fault it, especially pain relief."

We also spoke with two relatives who were visiting. Generally they were satisfied with the care received by their family member.

We spoke with six healthcare staff including two therapy assistants about how they recorded patient information. Including when this was updated, and how records were monitored to ensure they were accurate and completed.We viewed the main and bedside notes for five patients, three of whom we had spoken with. We observed care delivery and interactions between staff and patients.

We were satisfied that the service had made progress on improving the accuracy and completeness of care documentation. This reduced the risk that the full range of peoples care needs might not be attended to.

During our visit we met five patients and two sets of relatives. Three patients were able to engage in the inspection and commented positively about their care and the attitudes of staff at the unit. Two other patients had speech difficulties and were unable to vocalise at this time. We observed staff interactions with them during our visit. We also reviewed one patient who was asleep throughout our visit and whose health had deteriorated.

The relatives commented that they found the general support provided by staff good. One relative felt fully involved in their family members care and treatment and was satisfied with progress to date. They thought that the unit was effective for people who had good potential for rehabilitation. However, one relative felt that for people with limited potential for further rehabilitation the unit was ineffective and did not fully communicate a true picture of what was achievable to families.