The Priory Hospital Market Weighton

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. At this assessment, the rating has remained Good.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patients we spoke with were positive about staff and told us they felt that staff respected their privacy and dignity.

During our onsite assessment we spoke with 10 staff, including the responsible clinician, director of clinical services and the hospital director. They told us all patients were treated as individuals and all attempts were made to support this. The nurses completed individual care plans, and this included how the patients would prefer their care to be carried out.

During our onsite assessment we undertook a short observational framework for inspection (SOFI) and during this we observed positive interactions between staff and a patient, which were consistent with the patient’s positive behaviour support plan.

We received some positive feedback from external services who told us the interactions they observed and the notes and records they had access to indicated that staff were kind and considerate to patients and they gave examples of how the staff respected patients’ privacy and dignity.

Staff told us they included patients in creating care plans and positive behaviour support plans, where possible, to meet their individual needs. Staff spoke to us about making adjustments for patients to meet their needs, for example a bedroom and bathroom had been specifically adapted to accommodate a patient’s mobility and equipment requirements. Staff told us they had access to interpreters, advocacy, and external services to support physical health needs and dietary requirements.

We reviewed 9 care plans that were person centred and developed dependent on the patient’s spiritual needs, physical health needs and mental health needs. Community meeting minutes showed that the service asked patients about safety in the ward environment, restrictions and other improvements that could be made to ensure that the service supported individual needs as much as possible.

People were supported to maintain relationships. Staff encouraged and developed ways for people to access things that were important to them, for example, cultural and spiritual support. Patients had an awareness of the complaints process, and the service ensured people had access to advocacy services to make sure their voices were heard.

Staff supported people to communicate and make informed decisions about their care. They undertook a range of learning and development opportunities to develop ways to improve care delivery. The provider had recently recruited a speech and language therapist to support patients to maintain independence and control.

The service had a good and varied multi-disciplinary team with access to allied health professionals such as occupational therapy, psychology, and dietician.

We looked at 9 care and treatment records which demonstrated detailed positive behaviour support plans in place to maximise independence, choice, and control.

The patients we spoke with said staff were available when they needed them for support and were helpful, although 2 patients told us that some staff were not always friendly.

Staff we spoke with told us there were clear processes in place to deal with people's immediate needs, especially if they were in pain, discomfort, or distress. The service used recognised tools to assess occupational screening and monitor deterioration in patients' physical health, skin integrity and malnutrition. Records showed that staff undertook mandatory training in moving and handling and basic life support and at the time of our assessment staff were 94% and 86% compliant. We did not see any evidence of use of side-effect monitoring scales or tools for prescribed medication. The doctor confirmed this was not undertaken. The provider informed us they offered side-effects eLearning for clinical staff but did not provide compliance rates for this training.

The staff we interviewed spoke positively about the service, leaders, and managers.

Staff told us that the director of clinical services and hospital director were always available to offer support. Staff worked well together, and they were proud of the service being delivered.

Staff were positive about training and development and had opportunities to give feedback on the service and undertake learning. Staff attended team meetings, had regular supervision and annual appraisals.

The service conducted an annual colleague engagement survey asking questions in relation to engagement, wellbeing and empowerment. The results from the survey in 2025 showed that the 4 questions in relation to engagement averaged an 82% positive response and the 4 questions in relation to wellbeing averaged 78%.