You are here

Archived: The Priory Hospital Brighton & Hove Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 2 - 3 February 2016

During a routine inspection

We rated The Priory Hospital Brighton and Hove as good because:

  • Staff delivered care and treatment to patients in a kind, caring manner that respected their dignity.
  • Patients told us they felt safe and well cared for on the ward. Staff managed patient safety by appropriate use of observations.
  • Staff mandatory training was up to date and managers had completed appraisals of staff’s work performance.
  • Staff covered all shifts and did not have to cancel therapy sessions or escorted patient leave
  • Patient care plans showed good levels of patient involvement. Patients were involved in their care and given the opportunity to raise issues with the ward managers at a weekly community meeting.
  • Patients received an induction pack when staff admitted them to the ward
  • Nurses, doctors and other health professionals worked well together to provide safe and effective care and treatment to the patients. We observed a thorough and effective patient-focussed staff handover.
  • We saw evidence of an excellent working relationship between the ward and pharmacy services.
  • Therapy staff had received training in effective, research-proven therapeutic techniques, including cognitive behavioural therapy and eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing.
  • The hospital managers were a visible presence on the ward and made themselves known to staff and patients. Staff said managers were accessible and approachable.
  • Staff had effective working relationships with surrounding NHS trusts and local authorities.

However:

  • We observed numerous blind spots and potential ligature points (places to which patients intent on self-harm might tie something to strangle themselves) on the ward.
  • Staff did not demonstrate clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act.
  • Staff did not demonstrate a clear understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards legislation, which could have a detrimental effect on patients’ liberty and rights.
  • Not all informal patients (those not subject to the Mental Health Act) understood that they could leave the ward at any time.

Inspection carried out on 30 January 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

When we inspected The Priory Hospital, Brighton and Hove in July 2013 we found that not all the windows within patient rooms were designed to protect patients from the risk of self-harm.

In response to our concerns the provider had implemented a programme of improvements. This included the commissioning and fitting of window solutions to ensure that the hospital environment reduced the risks of self-harm.

A robust system of environmental risk assessment was in place to ensure that the premises remained safe for patients and promoted their wellbeing.

Inspection carried out on 25 July 2013

During a routine inspection

The care records we reviewed were person centred and well maintained and there were systems in place to audit and monitor the quality of care. Patients told us that their care and treatment needs were planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. One patient told us �Staff are very considerate and do everything they can to make sure I am happy and explain everything to me as many times as I need�.

Prior to receiving care, patients were given appropriate information that enabled them to make informed decisions. We saw that documentation showed that patients were being asked for their consent and that the provider had acted in accordance with their wishes.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet patient's needs in the event of sickness and to allow adequate time to support staff. We found that there were suitable arrangements in place to support staff with meaningful supervision, appropriate professional development and training, and an inclusive appraisal mechanism.

We found that the environment was clean and well maintained but that despite previous assurances, the provider had failed to take outstanding action to replace unsafe window fittings. This meant that not all patients were being protected against the risk of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

Inspection carried out on 16 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two patients who were attending in-patient treatment programmes and they told us that they could not fault the treatment and care they had received. They both said that without exception, the staff team were professional, understanding, caring and extremely kind. One patient described how a member of staff had enabled and supported him to visit the local hairdressers to have his hair cut. He said that the member of staff had been very understanding of his anxiety of doing this simple task and had been particularly mindful of protecting his dignity and confidentiality during the trip.

We were told how staff were always available and happy to speak with patients if there were any concerns or complaints. One patient described how even though some staff did not know him very well they always greeted him in a friendly manner and addressed him by name. He said that this simple act made him feel relaxed supported and cared for. We were told about the weekly community meetings which were held to give patients an opportunity to discuss any concerns or issues.

The patients we spoke with told us that the hospital paid attention to details which made a real difference. We were given an example of this from one patient who said �there is a great selection of newspapers available for patients that is really appreciated especially as I get up early and like to have some quiet reading time�. �Staff make it their business to make sure everything is right�.

Inspection carried out on 20 October 2011

During a routine inspection

People told us that while they were attending treatment programmes at the hospital they found that the service meets their care needs. Reference was made to the professionalism and kindness of the staff and the good relationship that the people undergoing treatment form with staff in a relatively short time.

We were told that people feel supported by the staff to receive the care they need, based on their assessed needs and they feel able to maintain their independence. They told us that every effort is made by the staff to treat them with dignity and respect whilst helping them maintain their independence and regain confidence. One person told us �the care is fabulous and it feels like the staff really worry about letting us down�.

People using the service confirmed that within the confines of their programmes they were able to make choices about their daily living routines, the food they wanted to eat and activities they wished to participate in.

We spoke with many people who told us that they thought the service generally had enough staff on duty and always responded quickly to requests for assistance. Everyone that we spoke to said that they found staff kind and caring and very respectful.

People told us that they would be happy to speak to any member of staff if they any concerns or complaints with full confidence that the matter would be attended to. They said that they could address any issues or concerns individually or through the weekly community meeting.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)


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.