You are here

The Priory Hospital Market Weighton Outstanding

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Outstanding

Updated 9 May 2018

  • We rated The Priory Hospital Market Weighton as outstanding because:

  • There was positive feedback from patients, carers and the advocacy services. All felt that staff went that extra mile to provide recovery focused, person centred care. Staff were continually respectful and positive in their approach to patients and there was evidence of strong caring and supportive relationships between staff and patients.
  • Patients were actively involved their care and were involved in decisions about the service. Patients were involved in interviewing all new staff and attended meetings regarding changes about the service at every level. Feedback from advocacy services about the service was positive reporting that they received appropriate referrals and patients give positive feedback to them about the hospital and its staff. All patients we spoke with were clear that they knew how to complain should they feel they wanted to.
  • Patients were encouraged in their interests and hobbies and supported to do voluntary work in the local community.
  • All patients made positive comments about the food. The chef had an excellent knowledge of the patients and was able to talk us through each patient and their nutritional needs on the day of our inspection. Whilst no-one required a special diet the chef and other staff were clear if one was needed it would be provided.
  • The Priory Hospital Market Weighton was providing holistic and person centred care to every patient. Staff had a clear vision of recovery and used outcome measures to monitor and assess recovery, whilst engaging patients in the process. The assessment process enabled patients and staff to get to know each other in order to ensure the placement was the correct place for everyone involved. Staff encouraged daily living skills.
  • Patients had access to psychological therapies as recommended by the national institute of health and care excellence. Every patient’s physical health was checked on admission and throughout their time in the service and were registered with a local GP surgery for this support.
  • The hospital was clean, tidy and well maintained. Staff managed blind spots , such as corridors that were not in sight of the nursing office, by use of observations, individualised risk assessments and the good knowledge of the patients by the staff. The clinic room was fully equipped and there were medication audits every two weeks by the local pharmacist.
  • The hospital was staffed sufficiently in order to ensure the safety of patients. There was no evidence of restrictive practice and patient risks were managed on an individual basis using a recognised risk assessment tool. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures at all levels and the hospital had good links with the local safeguarding team. All staff were aware of how and when to report incidents and the process for learning from incidents.
  • Staff were encouraged and supported to undertake specialist training for their role. Staff received supervision every four weeks and 100% of staff had an appraisal in the 12 months leading up to our inspection.
  • There was a good understanding at all levels of the Mental Health Act and its code of practice. Likewise the staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff assessed mental capacity when there were concerns and best interest meetings were held for patients that this affected.
  • The morale in the team was high and staff had a sense of pride in their work. The staff were committed to providing good quality, recovery focused care to all patients. The provider had a range of quality assurance and governance meetings set up across their organisation in order to monitor and improve performance.
Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 May 2018

We rated safe good because:

  • The service provider planned, implemented and reviewed staffing level and skills mix to ensure patient safety at all times.Staff attended handovers and shift changes, to ensure they could manage known and developing risks to patients who used services.
  • Staff had received up-to-date training in the mandatory training.
  • Staff recognised and responded appropriately to changes in risks to patients who used services.
  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses; they were fully supported when they do so.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 May 2018

We rated effective as good because:

  • Staff undertook a comprehensive assessment of patient needs, which included consideration of clinical needs, mental health, physical health and well being, and nutrition and hydration needs. Long and short-term goals were identified and reviewed with the patient.
  • Patients had a crisis plan so that staff understood how best to support them when they were in a time of crisis.
  • A range of different staff supported patients. Staff coordinated care through the multidisciplinary meeting. Staff worked collaboratively to understand and meet the range and complexity of people’s needs.
  • Staff received regular supervision, support and were encouraged to develop their skills.
  • Consent to care and treatment was obtained in line with legislation and guidance, including; the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Patients were supported to make decisions and, where appropriate, their mental capacity was assessed and recorded. When patients lacked the mental capacity to make a decision, ‘best interests’ decisions were made in accordance with legislation. The process for seeking consent was appropriately monitored.
  • There were good systems in place to support adherence to the Mental Health Act and MHA Code of Practice. The records we saw relating to the Act were generally well kept.

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 9 May 2018

We rated caring as outstanding because:

  • There was a strong, visible person-centred culture. Staff were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and promoted patient’s dignity.
  • Relationships between patients who used the service, those close to them and staff were strong, caring and supportive. These relationships were highly valued by staff and promoted by leaders.
  • Patients who used services were active partners in their care. Staff were fully committed to working in partnership with patients and making this a reality for each person.
  • Patients individual preferences and needs were reflected in how care was delivered.

Responsive

Outstanding

Updated 9 May 2018

We rated responsive as outstanding because:

  • Patients were involved in the planning of the service. This meant patients were actively involved in their care, including discharge planning and the staff were flexible to ensure those needs were met. The service aimed to provide patients with continuity of care.
  • Patients gave positive feedback about the food and choices available. Patients could access drinks and fruit at all times, staff would get them snacks on request and some snacks were available in the patient’s kitchen. The chef had an excellent knowledge of the patients and was able to talk us through each patient and their nutritional needs on the day of our inspection.
  • There were structured patient activity programmes that were specific to meet patient needs. Patients met to discuss which activities they would prefer and suggestions were implemented where possible.
  • Patients could move freely around the hospital and the grounds.
  • There was a robust complaints procedure for staff to follow. Complaints were fully investigated and information shared with staff and other appropriate people. The service had received two complaints from patients during the 12 months prior to our inspection. All patients we spoke with knew how to complain should they feel they needed to.

Well-led

Outstanding

Updated 9 May 2018

We rated well-led as outstanding because:

  • The staff at The Priory Hospital Market Weighton clearly put into practice the vision and values of the service provider. Patients were treated as individuals and were given the opportunity to have a voice in the service.
  • All staff in the hospital were concerned with patient care. Staff felt team working and mutual support were very high in the service. Staff satisfaction at work was high. The registered manager managed the staff in a way that promoted a good life work balance.
  • There was strong management of the service and staff were supported to follow their own career pathway. The registered manager delegated tasks through the governance structure and this enabled them to keep an oversight of the service. Where necessary following audits or incidents lessons were learned and shared with staff when
  • Patient’s individual needs and preferences were central to the planning and delivery of tailored services. The services were flexible, provide choice and ensure continuity of care.
  • There was an active review of complaints and how they were managed and responded to, and improvements were made as a result across the services. People who used services were involved in the reviews.
Checks on specific services

Wards for people with a learning disability or autism

Good

Updated 12 October 2015

The building was clean, well maintained and comfortably furnished. Systems were in place to monitor the safety of patients, staff and the environment. Medication was managed safely.

Staffing levels were maintained at a level that ensured patients were safe and received the treatment they needed. Staff were recruited following checks of their professional status and to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff understood their responsibilities in reporting any safeguarding. Staff had completed their mandatory training this meant they had the skills to provide a safe and effective service.

Care records had clear plans and guidance for staff on how to support patients who used the service. These records were reviewed and updated regularly.

There were good systems in place to support adherence to the Mental Health Act and MHA Code of Practice. The records we saw relating to the Act were generally well kept. We saw that the provider had systems in place to assess and record patients’ mental capacity to make decisions and develop care plans for any needs.

We observed positive interactions between staff and patients. Patients were treated with compassion and empathy. Patients’ were involved in planning their care.

Information on advocacy, the complaints process and Mental Health Act (MHA) rights was available to read on noticeboards.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal. Clinical and non-clinical staff could access further training to ensure they had the skills needed to carry out their role.

Staff were confident in raising concerns about practise and risks to patients. They told us that if they raised any issues with the director they felt listened to and confident action would be taken.

They carried out internal audits and there was a corporate team working on quality and improvement and they visited the hospital every three months.

Long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults

Outstanding

Updated 9 May 2018