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 were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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

• Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with young people showed that they mostly were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing young people with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. However, we observed one incident where a young person was distressed following a feed and there were no staff present, when we did find a member of staff to respond, they did not have the skills, knowledge and training to respond effectively.
• Staff mostly supported young people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. We saw staff talking to young people when they were in the communal lounge and giving positive feedback to the young people.
• Young people said staff mostly treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. However, staff not familiar to the ward, particularly agency staff were not engaging or encouraging young people to participate in activities, the young people we spoke with told us they just sat around. We saw staff sitting in the lounge area at times. We also observed during the Short Observation Framework for Inspection 2 (SOFI2) observation in the service, that there were not always staff in the communal area and when there were staff, they did not engage with the young people.
• Staff mostly understood the individual needs of young people, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. However, young people and families told us that some staff had made unhelpful comments and had inappropriate conversations in their presence, for example about food and body image.
• Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards young people without fear of negative consequences.
• Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about young people. Initials were used at handover and on the patient at a glance board. Staff locked their computers when they were leaving the room to protect confidential information.

We treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

• The service made adjustments for disabled patients – for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises. There was a lift to the ward.
• Staff supported a young person to create an “about me” resource for sharing with community services.
• Staff ensured that patients could obtain information, for example, on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain. Information was available on notice boards.
• The information provided was not always in a form accessible to the particular patient group. Some of the information on notice boards was in small print which made it uninviting to read. Young people told us they were not encouraged to read the information due to its format.
• There was welcoming information on display that was meaningful to the young people, including a pet board with pictures of people’s pets.
• There were folders in the lounge with resources including information about medicines.
• Staff had access to book interpreters for patients. Records showed that the hospital booked interpreters when needed, however there wasn’t anyone on the ward at the time of the assessment who required that service.
• Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. There had been previous difficulties with food not arriving as ordered and not being hot; this had been discussed in community meetings and was not an issue at the time of the assessment. For young people having nutrition via nasogastric feeds, their preferences were recorded regarding flavours and reducing regimes were in place with the aim of increasing oral intake.
• Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. There was a chaplain who visited the service.

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

• Care records showed that young people were mostly involved in the creation of their care plans and these included goals.
• Community meeting minutes showed that young people had their say about the service and improvements had been made following feedback, for example, the purchase of a swing ball.
• The dining room was very welcoming with decorations and positive affirmations. Each young person’s place at the dining table included an individualised place mat with pictures and artwork which was meaningful to them. Young people chose items that were helpful during meal times including fidget toys to assist during the difficult time of meals.

We did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We do not always respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

• Staff mostly were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, these were usually documented on handover records. However, for a young person who turned 18 years of age, it took 3 days for this to be recorded within handovers and there was nothing recorded regarding safeguarding or risks that staff needed to be vigilant to as they were an adult on a children and young people’s ward.
• Within the observation file there was a summary for each young person about important information and how best to support the young people.
• Staff did not always identify and respond to changing risks to, or posed by, young people. Families and stakeholders raised concerns about the service’s lack of responsiveness to changing risk and lack of timely debrief following incidents. We observed an incident where no staff were present and when a staff member arrived they were unsure how to respond to the incident.
• Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when young people’s behaviours became heightened. Techniques included the use of ice packs, ear defenders and accessing the outside space to enable young people to self-regulate and reduce their levels of distress.

We care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff.

• Staff felt respected, supported and valued. However, they acknowledged that it was difficult to be resilient at times on the ward.
• Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team.
• Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.
• The service’s staff sickness and absence were similar to the average for the provider.
• Staff told us they felt supported by the team.
• Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. There were opportunities for staff to apply to have their nurse training funded by the provider.