Brainkind Neurological Centre York

We inspected Brainkind Neurological Centre York on the 27 and 28 January 2026. Brainkind Neurological Centre York is part of the Disabilities Trust- Brainkind is the operating name of the charity. The service is provided in a purpose-built independent hospital providing specialist post-acute neuro-behavioural assessment and support to people with an acquired brain injury. The service has been registered since 2010 and registered at the current location since 2024. The service is registered to provide the regulated activities of assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, treatment of disease, disorder or injury and diagnostic and screening procedures.

The service had a nominated individual in place. The hospital had 36 ensuite rooms which were divided into 4 same-sex “Houses”: Foss, Brook, Tarn, and Spring. At the time of our inspection, Spring ward was not operational. The service is currently reviewing options for the use of this ward and therefore, Spring was not inspected. At the time of our inspection, there were 22 patients in the service. Each house had an 8 bed capacity. We inspected Foss, Brook and Tarn. As part of this inspection, we spoke with staff, patients, carers, reviewed care records and data from the service.

The service was last inspected in April 2024 and rated as good. We inspected the service to review the progress made following this inspection, where the key question of safe was rated as good. At the time of our inspection, the hospital director was in the process of applying for registered manager.

At this inspection we identified a breach of Regulation 18: Staffing as staff were not receiving regular supervision. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary

The service had policies and guidance in place around the Mental Health Act (MHA) and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). The policies were within date and had a scheduled review date. Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of the difference between legislation and could identify the five key principles of the MCA. Managers had oversight of mandatory training of staff, ensuring staff were working within the regulations.

The service had a Mental Health Act administrator who could provide additional support and advice if needed, the service was supporting the administrator in further training in their role. Leaders completed audits of MHA and MCA documentation to ensure patients were safe. Staff knew who their MHA administrator was and how to raise any concerns or issues. Additional oversight was provided by the pharmacy team to ensure that people were prescribed medication safely and as required by legislation.

At our last inspection we rated the service overall as good.

Our rating of the service ​stayed the same​. We rated them as ​good​ because:

• Staff completed and regularly updated thorough risk assessments of all ward areas and removed or reduced any risks they identified.
• The service had enough nursing and medical staff, who knew people and received basic training to keep people safe from avoidable harm.
• Staff assessed and managed risks to people and themselves well and followed best practice in anticipating, de-escalating and managing challenging behaviour.
• Staff followed policy when using restrictive interventions. We found that there was good oversight of the use of restrictive intervention by managers and leaders.
• Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.
• Care plans reflected people’s assessed needs, and were personalised, holistic and recovery oriented.
• Ward teams had effective working relationships with other relevant teams within the organisation and with relevant services outside the organisation.
• There were effective bed management processes in place.
• The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results, and shared these with the whole team and wider service.
• Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed and could explain clearly how teams worked to provide high quality care.

However:

• There were not effective systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines. Staff did not ensure that medicines were stored correctly and were in date. Staff did not always identify and correct prescribing errors.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.