The Priory Hospital Altrincham

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

Good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We mostly treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respect their privacy and dignity, and treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

• On both wards, clinic rooms had small hatches in the doors for dispensing medicines. One clinic was located in a busy ward area, while the other was near offices and patient-accessed rooms. A notice and seating were provided outside one dispensing hatch indicating that patients may need to wait for medicines to be dispensed and that several patients may be waiting at a time. These arrangements meant that patients were not assured of privacy, and confidentiality should they wish to discuss or ask questions about their medication.
• Staff exhibited respectful and responsive attitudes in their interactions with patients. We observed staff providing practical assistance, emotional support, and thoughtful advice, including in challenging situations, such as when patients were unsettled or receiving enhanced observations. Patients told us that staff treated them with respect and politeness.
• Staff demonstrated effective management of patient distress using de-escalation and enhanced observations. On Tatton ward, we observed staff using de-escalation and re-direction strategies effectively with unsettled patients, supported by consistent and appropriate one-to-one enhanced observations.
• Patients reported that staff were caring and that they felt protected by staff, who intervened when needed when the ward was more unsettled.
• Patients were positive about their interactions with staff on both Tatton and Dunham wards. Patients talked positively about staff, describing them as approachable and understanding, and felt they cared and were interested in patients. Most people told us that staff were respectful and treated them well. However, one person said they felt left on their own shortly after admission, at a time when they did not know anyone and were unfamiliar with the ward environment. We also had feedback that staffing shortages on Dunham ward had impacted the availability of support offered.
• Staff supported patients to be involved with and understand their care, treatment or condition. We observed 2 ward round reviews. Patients were asked for their views about their care, progress and how best the staff team could support them.
• Staff maintained confidentiality through the use of white noise machines above the door of rooms in which one to one meetings or therapy sessions took place.
• Stakeholders reported that, when a patient expressed dissatisfaction with their treatment, the concerns were addressed and resolved promptly on the same day.

We do not always treat people as individuals or make sure people's care, support and treatment meet their needs and preferences. We do not always take account of people's strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

• The service did not always make reasonable adjustments for disabled patients. For example, access to some therapy facilities was not ensured for wheelchair users, and the specific needs of neurodivergent patients were not consistently met. On both acute wards, patients with neurodivergent diagnoses lacked appropriate adjustments and supportive interventions in their care plans.
• We received feedback from patients on Dunham ward that the Alcohol Therapy Programme was not always relevant for people with other substance use addictions, who described having fewer tailored treatment options and limited access to groups. In addition, we were told that one to one therapy sessions with staff could be short.
• Patients did not always have access to food that met the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups; for example, halal options were reported to be limited. Patients gave mixed feedback about food options. Some reported a lack of variety and said requests for alternatives were not always accommodated, while others, including for a vegan diet, felt this need was well met with a good range of choices. We were also told that while food could be provided on the ward according to individual need and choice, deliveries could be delayed, and that the quality sometimes deteriorated during transport.
• Patients told us they had a named nurse and a named healthcare assistant, which provided continuity of care. Patients were also aware of the consultant responsible for their treatment. However, if a named nurse worked night shifts, there could be limited opportunities to see them, or one to one sessions could be scheduled too late into the evening.
• Patients had access to interpreters, and care records showed that interpreters were booked when needed to support patients whose first language was not English.
• Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. Several posters were visible at different points on the wards for chaplaincy services. The provider told us there was a multi-faith room available for patients.

We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

• Ward rounds we observed, showed that patients were actively involved in the meetings and were asked for their views, opinions and experiences.
• Care plans recorded that patients were mostly involved in the creation of their care plans and these included goals.
• Stakeholders told us that when restrictions were necessary these were always explained with a rationale.
• Staff described assessing risk and care needs to adjust observation levels, supporting patients to gradually increase independence towards time spent off the ward within hospital grounds to unescorted leave, off-site leave, and eventually family leave.
• Patients who were able to leave the ward environment had the opportunity to take their meals in the hospital dining room that was off the ward, overlooking open gardens, supporting greater independence and helping to prepare them for transition to less restrictive settings. Patients taking meals on the wards could do so in their rooms if they wished. Both wards had open access kitchens with hot and cold drinks and snacks available.
• The hospital had attractive, well-maintained gardens. Access to these outdoor areas supported patients’ wellbeing and offered opportunities for social interaction and relaxation. On the day of inspection, we observed patients, visitors, and staff making use of these outdoor spaces.
• Patients participated in regular community ward meetings, which provided a forum for them to express their choices, preferences, and contribute to decisions about ward life.

We listen to and understand people's needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

• Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. Patients told us that when others on the ward became unsettled or displayed aggressive behaviour, staff managed the situations promptly and effectively, helping them feel safe.
• All patients had a 'Keeping Safe' care plan, which provided a dedicated space to document more immediate or emerging needs.
• On Tatton ward we observed staff carrying out enhanced observations responding promptly and sensitively to patients who were unsettled or distressed. Staff engaged with patients in the moment, offering reassurance and attempting to meet their immediate needs and wishes, while doing so within the context of challenging restrictions for patients.
• Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients' behaviours became heightened. We observed one instance where staff responded calmly to a distressed patient, giving them space and helping to de-escalate the immediate stressful situation.

We care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff.

• Staff told us that they felt respected, supported and valued.
• Staff spoke positively and with pride about working for the provider and their teams. Both long-standing and new staff described being happy in their roles and with the hospital’s culture.
• We spoke to longstanding agency staff who had chosen to work with the provider over an extended period because they felt supported, believed patient care was prioritised, and valued the positive working environment.
• The staff we spoke to reported no incidents of bullying or harassment on either Tatton or Dunham wards. They described the staff teams as friendly and supportive.
• Ward managers were aware of and understanding when ward staff shared personal circumstances that affected them.
• The provider recognised staff achievements through initiatives such as ‘Employee of the Week’ notices, which Tatton ward shared during ward community meetings. There were several appreciative comments and compliments made in ward community meetings when staff had provided specific and valued support to patients.
• Staff were recognised for delivering successful initiatives. Tatton ward had a Christmas Day programme and celebration for patients. The positive feedback and benefits for patients were shared and applauded when the staff presented their work at the Clinical Governance Committee.