The Care Quality Commission
  • Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Archived: Priory Clinic Norwich

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

13-15 Cathedral Street, Norwich, Norfolk, NR1 1LU (01603) 661718

Provided and run by:
Priory Healthcare Limited

All Inspections

5 December 2016

During a routine inspection

We rated this service as good because:

  • The service employed enough experienced staff to deliver a variety of therapies.
  • Patients all spoke highly of the care and treatment they received. They said staff were caring, respectful and treated them with dignity and kindness.
  • The service offered patients an appointment within 48 hours of referral, fully assessed patients using recognised assessment tools and risks were managed appropriately.
  • Staff fully involved patients in choosing treatment goals.
  • Care plans were personalised and recovery focussed.
  • Staff offered psychological therapies as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
  • Patients could easily re-engage in treatment after leaving the service if required.
  • Appointments were booked at convenient times for patients, did not start late and were not cancelled.
  • The service provided a clean, comfortable environment and ensured environmental risks were assessed and managed.
  • Staff were sufficiently trained, supervised and supported.
  • Staff morale was high and management support was good.
  • Patients and staff could provide feedback and the service used this to improve care and treatment.

16 March 2016

During a routine inspection

We rated Priory Norwich Wellbeing Centre as good because:

  • Patients were central to the formulation of care and treatment. All patients spoken to felt they were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Patients had input into their care and treatment and care plans were regularly updated to reflect this. Patients regularly offered feedback on their experience of the service. Information about the patient was stored securely and only shared with external professional colleagues on a need to know basis.
  • All staff were professionally qualified and regulated by professional bodies. Staff had received and were up to date with mandatory training. Staff had an annual appraisal of their work performance. The hospital director gave regular managerial supervision to the lead therapist and sessional therapists. Sessional therapists arranged professional supervision themselves as part of their professional requirements.
  • The provider had assessed and managed risks to patients and staff at the centre. Risk assessments were completed at the beginning of treatment and on an ongoing basis. Staff used recognised tools, such as general anxiety disorder scores and patient self completed health questionnaires, to record the progress of individual care and treatment.
  • Staff maintained and regularly checked a first aid kit that contained a comprehensive range of first aid items. The centre had a clear policy covering what to do in the case of a medical emergency.
  • There were safety alarms in every room to alert others to an incident where assistance may be required. Staff reported incidents and learned lessons from complaints and incidents throughout the Priory group. Strong links with the Priory Hospital, Chelmsford ensured learning was shared with and throughout the wider organisation.
  • Appointments were not cancelled and ran to time. A central administration team supported the centre by making appointments and liaising with the lead therapist.
  • There was evidence of good governance. Staff felt confident to raise concerns. Staff enjoyed their work, morale was high. There was a low sickness and absence rate.

10 June 2013

During a routine inspection

Written documentation was seen to be person focused and individualised and people told us that they were involved in discussions about their care. This demonstrated to us that people's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

We saw that the individual treatment programmes reviewed during our visit reflected the assessed needs of the person receiving therapy. This meant that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

The service worked closely with the consultant psychiatrists and General Practitioners who had referred people to this service. This showed us that people's health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment.

A clear and useful 'making a complaint' booklet was seen and we were told that a copy was given to everyone who wanted to raise concerns. This meant that people were supported to make complaints if required and that comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

Those records reviewed were noted to be comprehensive and fit for purpose. This demonstrated to us that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.