Nest Healthcare

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

We rated responsive as good. We assessed six quality statements. People received person centred care and were supported in their decision making. People did not experience discrimination and staff worked together to provide equity in access to care and treatment. Care plans showed that clients were empowered to support in making decisions about their care. The care planning process took clients individualised needs and preferences into consideration.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us that managers conducted the initial care plan with clients on admission, and that following this support workers or other staff were able to update or amend the care plan. Staff told us clients were empowered in decision making, staff said client’s treatment and aftercare was tailored to suit their needs and preferences.

As there were no clients in treatment at the time of inspection, the provider was not holding client community meetings. Care plans showed that clients were empowered to support in making decisions about their care. The care planning process took clients individualised needs and preferences into consideration.

Managers told us they were available to admit clients at short notice. Due to the restrictions placed on the provider at the last inspection, along with the previous rating, referral numbers had significantly reduced. Managers told us they described themselves as a specialist rehabilitation and wellness clinic, offering complimentary and clinical therapies. Managers said that most clients who accessed treatment were self-funded.

The provider had a process in place to decide if potential clients were suitable for the service, this included a pre admission assessment and a further clinical assessment. The service did not have alternative care pathways or referral systems for people whose needs it could not meet. Any unsuitable clients would be supported by the referring agency to explore alternative options.

Managers told us they had a translation service available. However, they had not experienced any people requiring any translation support. Managers told us they had been transparent with referring agencies and potential clients about the rating following the last inspection.

The service did not have information leaflets available in languages spoken by clients and local community. There were no leaflets on display anywhere in the building. There was no visible information on local services, client rights or how to complain. All staff had received training on GDPR. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a legal framework that sets guidelines for the collection and processing of personal information from individuals who live in and outside of the European Union (EU).

Staff told us they would support clients to stay in contact with family members and encouraged them to develop and maintain relationships with others in the service. Staff said clients could have access to their mobile phones at set times of the day.

The provider did not have a process in place to offer support for carers. The provider had a complaints process in place but had received no complaints within the last 6 months.

The provider told us there were no waiting lists for accessing treatment at the time of the inspection. Clients could access services when they need to, without physical or digital barriers. The provider said they usually only accepted new clients during the day, to ensure they could settle into the house.

The provider had a process in place to manage medical and out of hours emergencies. The provider had a discharge policy in place, which included evaluating the client’s readiness for transition, relapse prevention skills and support network. The provider did not use people’s feedback to actively seek to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care. Overall, 100% of staff had completed diversity, equality, and inclusion mandatory training.

Leaders and staff explained how they were aware of discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage people using their services, whether from wider society, organisational processes, and culture or from individuals.

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.