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

Archived: The Priory Hospital St Neots

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Howitts Lane, Eynesbury, St Neots, Cambridgeshire, PE19 2JA (01480) 210210

Provided and run by:
Priory Rehabilitation Services Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

12 -13 April 2016

During a routine inspection

We rated The Priory Hospital, St Neots as good because:

  • The hospital was safe, visibly clean and well maintained. Staff completed cleaning records that showed the hospital was regularly cleaned throughout the day.
  • Staff stocked medication that was correct for patient’s needs. Staff completed physical health check records that were current and ongoing. Staff had access to emergency equipment and knew where to find this. The provider met the physical healthcare needs of its patients. There was a designated, fully equipped clinic room. The GP attended weekly for planned appointments. Patients could attend urgent appointments at the local GP surgery.
  • The provider had a policy and procedures for use of observation. Patients had one to one support, 15-minute checks or 30-minute checks depending on need. Staff ensured all paper and electronic patient information was stored securely. Care records and care plans contained up to date, personalised, holistic treatment goals.
  • The provider had an open, transparent approach to learning from incidents. Managers would debrief staff after an incident. Staff said they had opportunity to discuss and learn how to make improvements in safety.
  • Managers addressed staffing levels daily to ensure that was an appropriate staff to meet the needs of the patients. Hospital managers supported staff to deliver high quality care by promoting team working and mutual support. Eighty one per cent of staff were compliant with mandatory training. Staff and managers completed annual appraisals. The provider held regular staff team meetings. Staff knew how to spot safeguarding issues and how to report these effectively.
  • Patients were encouraged to share views and discuss any concerns or ideas. Staff interactions with patients were caring and senior management were approachable and friendly. Patients reported staff treated them kindly and with dignity.
  • Staff regularly informed patients of their rights under the Mental Health Act and reviewed detained patients paperwork regularly.
  • There were a variety of room for patients and their visitors to use including a family visiting room. Patients had access to a private garden where visitors could also sit. Patients could personalise their rooms and artwork made by patients was displayed throughout the hospital.

However:

  • Staff did not always inform all patients’ carers of new best interest decisions.
  • Some patients’ records we sampled did not describe what went well or how patients felt when they returned to the hospital from agreed leave.

11 December 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with six people who told us that their care and support was generally to their satisfaction. One person said, "The staff are OK and they help me quite a bit. I don't smoke as much as I would like to but I know that I can and the arrangement to smoke is OK really". All of the six people we spoke with expressed positive aspects of their care and support, although one person added a less positive comment about their wish to play music and another person told us they did not agree with the arrangements that had been made for them to reside at the hospital.

Care plans had been recorded and were being delivered to people by staff who understood their needs and who were able to provide personal support. Staff were observed and demonstrated a degree of attention and vigilance that was necessary to provide safe and effective care.

We saw that safeguarding arrangements were effective and that action had been taken where necessary to protect vulnerable people. Staff had a good understanding of how they were protecting people from the potential risks that had been identified.

Staff were supervised and received appropriate support to carry out their respective roles.

We found that all complaints that had been received by the provider had been responded to in an appropriate timescale and had been recorded in detail.

10 May 2012

During a routine inspection

One person told us they liked the Priory Grange because they got to go out twice a week and that the staff were " lovely" and always explained what they were going to do before helping them with anything. Another person told us that they were asked by staff if they were happy with the support they had received. All of the people we talked with confirmed that they were supported to make choices such as what time they got up and went to bed and where they would like to go. All of the people we talked with told us that the staff treat them with dignity and respect and that their privacy was upheld when they were being supported with their personal care. One person told us that when they were ill the staff arranged for the GP to visit.

22 January 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

As the purpose of this review was to assess improvements made in relation to shortfalls identified during our previous reviews of compliance undertaken in September 2011 and December 2011, we did not request information directly from people using the service on this occasion.

19 October 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The majority of people we spoke with told us that they got on well with the staff and could make decisions that affected them. One person told us that they enjoyed some of the activities especially going out to the local market. Another person told us that they were happy with most of the care they received from the staff but sometimes felt that unnecessary restrictions were placed on them.

17 June 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

Some of the people we spoke with told us that they can talk to the staff and that the staff are always polite, listen to what they have to say and treat them with respect.

Some people told us that they did not always feel safe or relaxed living in the hospital due in part to not getting on with other people who were also living there. We were told by some people using the hospital service that they were able to makes choices about when to get out of bed in the morning and could refuse to sign care plans if they did not agree with what had been planned, although we were told that they could not go out into the garden as often as they wanted.

One person told us that they only feel safe living at The Priory Grange sometimes. One

person told us that they don't like the hot food.

Mental Health Act Commissioner reports

Each year, we visit all NHS trusts and independent providers who care for people whose rights are restricted under the Mental Health Act to monitor the care they provide and check that patients' rights are met. Immediate concerns raised by patients on those visits are discussed, if appropriate, with hospital staff.

Our Mental Health Act Commissioners may carry out a number of visits to each provider over a 12-month period, during which they talk to detained patients, staff and managers about how services are provided. In the past, we summarised themes from the visits and published an annual statement followed by the provider's response where applicable. We are looking at different ways to indicate the outcomes of our monitoring in the future.