The Priory Hospital Market Weighton

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

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to premises. The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People we spoke with felt involved in their care and felt staff were understanding and supported them to make specific decisions for themselves, which involved relatives or advocates if requested. Patients could have copies of their care plans.

The hospital had a multidisciplinary team to meet the patients’ needs and staff told us that collaborative support planning enabled them to respond to any relevant changes in the needs of patient, and that they were able to effectively manage risk due to robust care planning.

Managers gave examples of how staff within the service had based patient care around individual needs, such as a recent recruitment of staff to meet the needs of patients, for example a speech and language therapist, clinical psychologist and positive behaviour support practitioner.

Staff and external services we spoke with gave examples of specific care planning for a patient who regularly refused medication and provided clear instructions for staff when managing this situation. The service made adaptations to the environment to cater for mobility requirements and other equipment. The hospital created a new ward, that is named The Wicstun, and this provided 2 bespoke therapeutic living environments for individualised care where the team can adapt to patient’s individual needs.

The feedback we gained regarding access to activities was mixed and 4 patients we spoke with told us that they did not get involved with activities, 1 patient told us the activities were boring, 1 patient told us activities were available but there was not much variety, and 1 patient told us there plenty of activities. Staff told us patients had access to a range of activities and patients could attend monthly community meetings and activities were discussed. We observed one activity during our assessment which included 3 patients, but 1 patient could not engage in the activity because it did not consider their needs.

Patients had planned section 17 leave (allows detained patients to be granted leave of absence from the hospital) for therapeutic interventions aimed at treatment and rehabilitation. Examples of section 17 leave included access to leisure facilities and the local area. The occupational therapist informed us that the service was making links locally to support patients going to work or voluntary placements.

The provider did not have processes in place to provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information at all times.

We observed information boards on the ward, including accessing advocacy, safeguarding information, complaints, and ward specific activities but the activities timetable was out of date and the information was not provided in an easy read format. A patient we spoke with told us that information is not always accessible as they cannot read well. Other patients we spoke with, told us they were provided with information on their section and medication and offered a copy of their care plans.

We spoke with partner organisations who told us that sharing of information and communication could be improved, for example updates following an incident and communication to improve aspects of a patient’s stay.

Patients had a range of ways in which they could give feedback such as community meetings, multi-disciplinary meetings, through advocates and the providers complaints process.

Managers investigated complaints and identified themes. In the last 6 months the service had received 1 complaint which was upheld. No complaints had been referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). Managers shared feedback from these complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service. The service also used compliments to learn, celebrate success and improve the quality of care.

Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them. Information on how to raise a concern or make a complaint was displayed.

Patients had access to a range of professionals including nurses, a psychiatrist, psychologist, occupational therapist, and speech and language therapist. Additional roles had been recruited to since the last inspection, to improve the care and treatment provided, including a positive behaviour support practitioner. Staff referred patients to external services when required. Staff supported patients with specific religious and cultural needs. Specific equipment was also available for patients who had accessibility needs. Staff told us that interpreters would be made available if this was identified as part of the admission process.

The average length of stay for 9 out of the 10 patients admitted to the main ward was 18 months. For the 10 patients, the shortest length of stay was 4 months, and the longest length of stay was over 10 years. We reviewed care records and most included plans for discharge and detailed steps the patient needed to take to progress. Managers explained that longer stay patients had regular care and treatment reviews and hospital managers hearings (to review cases of patients detained under the Mental Health Act)and we saw evidence of these.

Staff completed mandatory diversity and inclusion training and at the time of our assessment, the staff were 100% compliant with this training. Staff also completed training on learning disabilities and autism and staff were 100% compliant with this training.

The 7 patients we spoke with felt they were treated fairly and equally. No concerns were raised regarding discrimination and staff made every effort to ensure reasonable adjustments were in place to support equity in experience and outcomes.

Patients told us that they had access to advocacy and the advocate we spoke with confirmed they attended the service on a weekly basis.

The provider had different modes of feedback in place and tailored the care, support, and treatment in response to this feedback and to enhance the quality of life and independence of people.

Leaders told us they dealt with patient-on-patient discrimination, and they monitored, analysed, and discussed incidents in regular meetings.

The 9 care plans we reviewed were recovery focused and 8 of these referred to discharge planning. Multi-disciplinary meetings discussed and documented actions for discharge or where this was not in place the service provided clear rationale for this.

Staff told us processes were in place to ensure all relevant individuals were involved in planning and preparing for discharges. This included social care, community teams, future placement, and family members if the patient consented to this. Patients were involved in discharge planning to ensure their choices and preferences were always accounted for.