Thames Brain Injury Unit, London.Thames Brain Injury Unit in London is a Hospitals - Mental health/capacity and Rehabilitation (illness/injury) specialising in the provision of services relating to assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the 1983 act, caring for people whose rights are restricted under the mental health act, mental health conditions, physical disabilities and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 12th September 2018 Contact Details:
Ratings:For a guide to the ratings, click here. Further Details:Important Dates:
Local Authority:
Link to this page: Inspection Reports:Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.
7th August 2018 - During a routine inspection
![]() We rated Thames Brain Injury Unit as good because:
However:
17th August 2015 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made
![]()
10th April 2015 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made
![]() This was a focused inspection at the Thames Brain Injury Unit to follow up on areas of previous non-compliance. We looked at the following areas: care and welfare of people who use the services, cleanliness and infection control, safety and suitability of the premises, supporting workers and complaints.
We saw that the provider had made improvements to the cleanliness, safety and maintenance of the ward environment since our last inspection. The provider had taken action to ensure that the risk that people were not unlawfully deprived of their liberty was monitored. Most patients we spoke with were aware of their care planning, however patient’s involvement in their care plans was not evidenced in the records we reviewed. There was also a lack of evidence of mental capacity assessments in care plans.
Staff we spoke with felt supported and received regular supervision. Daily handovers, monthly staff meetings and clinical governance meetings took place to improve communication and ensure actions were follow up in a timely manner. Complaints were documented and investigated appropriately.
We found that a number of staff did not have current Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. We also found that incidents were not escalated or documented immediately.
19th February 2014 - During a routine inspection
![]() We spoke with two people who used the service and observed the care people received who were unable to effectively communicate. People we spoke with told us they were being looked after well by the staff and they received relevant therapy in order to progress their rehabilitation. People told us the staff were good and overall they were happy living at the service. We found that staff interacted with people in a respectful way and that staff were mindful of the different needs of people who used the service. We found that staff sought consent before they delivered care to people. People who did not have the mental capacity to make specific decisions had their capacity appropriately assessed and decisions made in their best interests where relevant. We found people's needs were adequately assessed prior to and on admission to ensure their needs were met. Staff were provided with sufficient information to ensure they knew about people's care needs. The provider acted in accordance with relevant safeguarding procedures. People who needed to be were lawfully deprived of their liberty, and the provider ensured that any physical intervention that took place was done safely and by appropriately trained staff. Staff received an appropriate induction, training and support. Appropriate records were in place to record the care people received, but some information we requested was not available during or after our inspection.
5th March 2013 - During a routine inspection
![]() The three patients we spoke with told us about key staff members they could approach and discuss anything they needed to with. One patient told us, “they’re helping me a lot.” Another patient told us, “I go along to the activities sessions. I talk to the psychologist, the nurse and the medical team.” Arrangements for the completion of assessments of capacity to consent to treatment needed to be improved. There were appropriate care planning and delivery arrangements in place. Care plans were in place for patients in the service, which identified their needs and how they would be met. The provider has taken steps to provide care in an environment that is suitably designed and adequately maintained. There were appropriate numbers of staff on duty. However, the provision of staff supervision sessions had not improved since our last inspection
21st July 2011 - During an inspection in response to concerns
![]() People we spoke to who use the service said that probably due to memory problems they were not aware of the details of their care plan, but that we could examine it if we needed to as part of the inspection. They said that they did speak with the staff when they need things to be done differently and that they were listened to. Overall, the feedback we received from people who live at the home was very complimentary about the way staff respected their rights and encouraged them to get involved in the running of their home. They said that staff knew what care was needed and that they do things the way people who use the service want them to. People told us staff listened to them and respected their privacy and dignity. Some relevant comments we received from people who use the service received were : “The staff are never rude and are always respectful to me”, “I was very depressed and disabled when I came here first, but every member of staff has always been very kind, caring and polite to me”, “I feel staff do listen and show me nothing but respect”, “The staff are very professional and have done a very good job in helping me to get better”, “I needed a lot of help when I came here first but I always felt in safe hands”. These comments were reflective of the overall comments of people we spoke to who live at the home. Relatives said they had no concerns about the safety and wellbeing of their family member, and that staff provided good quality care. People that we spoke to said that they felt safe and comfortable with staff supporting them. They said that they had regularly been asked about things like what food they would like, and how they liked to be supported.
1st January 1970 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made
![]() Following the most recent inspection in May 2016, the overall rating for the service has remained as requires improvement. However, whilst there is still work to do, we have seen a number of improvements. There was a leadership team in place to progress these improvements.
The ratings for the key questions of whether the service is safe and effective remain as requires improvement. We have revised the rating of the key question of whether the service is caring from good to requires improvement. We have revised the rating of the key question of whether the service is responsive from requires improvement to good. We have revised the rating of the key question of whether the service is well-led from inadequate to good.
The reasons for these ratings are as follows:
However:
|
Latest Additions:
|