The Priory Hospital Market Weighton

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and felt positive about how approachable and proactive senior managers were. Staff told us that sharing information and continuous learning was implemented through various forms which included handovers, supervisions, and staff meetings.

Staff recognised most incidents and reported them appropriately. Incidents were reviewed and governance processes would pick up any themes and trends, which would be discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings and formulations. Managers could give examples of changes following lessons learnt from an incident. The service reported no serious incidents in the last 12 months.

Patients told us they knew how to raise concerns and staff within the service were responsive. We were unable to get direct feedback from family members, however staff and external agencies confirmed that some families were involved in regular meetings and that they were kept informed, as much as possible.

The service had a clear admissions policy in place. Staff and leaders spoke about pre-admission, ensuring all essential information about the patient was received to determine if the patient’s needs could be safely met, patients could visit the ward and members of the staff team could visit the patient. Staff and leaders gave examples of collaborative working with partners, who regularly attended multi-disciplinary meetings and other relevant care planning and review meetings. Feedback from partner organisations was positive about the services involvement with other services to discharge people effectively and safely from the service.

Patients were involved in their care and discharge plans, and they were always encouraged to attend meetings to share their views. Families were invited to meetings when the patient had given consent. Patients were supported to have extended leave, visits to and relationship building with potential placements.

Staff we spoke with told us they knew who to raise and report safeguarding concerns to. Safeguarding adults and children training was mandatory, and compliance at the time of the assessment was over 90%.

The provider had effective systems, policies, and processes in place to ensure that staff identified and reported concerns. In the previous 12 months the provider had made 5 safeguarding referrals. We also reviewed 9 care plans which captured any safeguarding concerns. The service had a monthly safeguarding meeting and described a good relationship with the local authority.

The service used restraint as a last resort and reported only 3 incidents of restraint in the previous 6 months. The service regularly reviewed restrictions and banned items, which were minimal and individually risk assessed. The service appropriately used supportive observations, reviewed and discussed these in multi-disciplinary meetings.

All patients had up to date risk assessments and were included in developing least restrictive management plans to manage risks. Risk assessments were reviewed monthly or after an incident.

Restraint was only ever used as a last resort. All restrictive interventions were reviewed and the service kept accurate records. In the last 6 months prior to the assessment the service had recorded 3 incidents of restraint. The provider implemented processes to reduce restrictive practice and had 3 blanket restrictions, which were regularly reviewed. The restrictions in place included supervised access to the laundry room, no 18+ films in communal areas and no control over portion sizes due to promotion of healthy eating. Staff told us they completed a restraint reduction network approved training course. However, at the time of our assessment the providers full restraint training had a compliance rate of 60%. The provider informed us that they ensured there were sufficient trained staff on each shift and all staff requiring this training were booked on this course at the end of May 2025.

All patients were assessed and reviewed by specialists, who were part of a team, such as occupational therapy, psychology, positive behaviour support practitioner, nurses and speech and language therapy. Patients were also referred to external specialists, when appropriate, and the service worked with partner organisations to support patients access to the community or to maintain relationships by using effective risk management.

We spoke with 7 patients who told us they felt safe on the ward. Patients were involved in monthly community meetings where they were asked about the ward environment and safety on the ward. Patients had access to an independent advocacy service.

The hospital compromised of the main ward with 11 beds and 2 bespoke therapeutic placement apartments, which included a bedroom, en-suite bathroom, kitchen, lounge and small garden area, which patients accessed their apartment from. Staff had direct access to the apartments via the dedicated nursing office that was attached to the main hospital. The service also had a therapy house which was not part of the main building. This provided additional office space, meeting areas and had activity rooms for patients.

Staff completed and updated environmental risk assessments of the hospital. Risks identified within the ward environment were managed through an inclusion and exclusion criteria as part of the admission process, individual risk assessments and observations to manage individual risks. Patients were encouraged to comment on the ward environment in community meetings. The multidisciplinary team, including nurses, completed risk assessments of patients and considered how to keep people safe.

In the main hospital there were nurse call alarm points on all the walls for people to use if needed. This nurse call alarm system did not extend to the therapy house. 5-point risk assessments and signing out of the building was in place for patients escorted to this building. A lone working protocol was in place, which included 2 staff accompanying patients to the building if necessary and staff carried individual radios to raise an alarm if needed. The service had personal alarms for people to use if needed, however, not all patients, staff and visitors knew they could have access to a personal alarm.

Patients had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place, however we found that not all these detailed what action staff should take if a patient refused to leave the building. We raised this with the management team on the day of the onsite assessment and these were updated the same day.

A ward tour and check of the environment and equipment was undertaken during our onsite activity. We found that some areas of the hospital, including in patient's bedrooms and ensuite bathrooms required some redecoration. This was raised with the hospital who provided a redecoration plan for 2025. This did not include patients' bedrooms. We were informed these were on a 3-year cycle for redecoration and patients could raise any maintenance issues. We carried out a check of the clinic room and emergency bag, and we found no concerns with this equipment. Staff had access to a range of equipment to support patients such as hoists and wheelchairs.

The provider ensured they had enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff. Vacant positions within the multi-disciplinary team had been filled since the last inspection, such as the occupational therapist. The provider's current vacancies were due to the opening of the 2 bespoke therapeutic placement beds. The service used bank and agency staff, when necessary to ensure safe staffing figures. In the 6 months prior to our assessment, sickness rates were low at 1.6% and in the same period turnover of staff was 0.4%.

The provider had a mandatory training programme, which was monitored, and staff were alerted when they needed to update this. The hospital was 91% compliant with training overall. All courses, except for Reducing Restrictive Intervention Training had a completion rate above 81%. Staff had regular supervision, and all staff received annual appraisals and those currently at work were up to date.

We observed good levels of staffing during the assessment and there was enough staff to meet the needs of patients, including activities, engagement, and Section 17 leave. Patients told us that they had regular opportunities to meet with all members of the multi-disciplinary team.

Staff we spoke with were aware of infection, prevention and control requirements and policies. Staff told us there was an infection prevention and control lead on the staff team who carried out regular spot checks for ensuring good infection, prevention, and control standards.

The provider had some effective systems and processes in place to ensure they managed the risk of infection. Domestic staff carried out regular cleaning of the hospital. Training statistics indicated 88.5% compliance with infection, prevention and control training.

An external specialist pharmacist visited the hospital every month to review prescription charts as part of their regular audit process and we reviewed the audit report from these visits. We saw evidence of these audits being reviewed and action taken.

Staff followed systems and processes to prescribe and administer medicines safely. Medicines were reviewed during multi-disciplinary team meetings. Medicines reconciliation was completed regularly, and relevant observations were completed dependant on individual treatment plans. One patient was supported to self-medicate and these medications were kept securely in a safe in the patients room.

Medicines and prescription charts were stored securely in the clinic room.

Fridge temperature checks were all recorded and within accepted ranges and sharps bins were labelled with date of assembly.