The Priory Hospital Chelmsford

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

At our last inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating has remained as good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We spoke with 2 people on Chelmer ward and they both said that staff were skilled, helpful, kind and caring.

We received feedback from 2 family members of patients who had undergone treatment for addiction on Chelmer Ward. Both said that staff were always helpful, responsive, friendly and supportive. One family member told us that the support and information they had been given regarding their loved one’s addiction had been a ‘lifeline’.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their own care, treatment or condition. Patients were offered copies of their care plans and given information about their medications.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of consequences.

Staff maintained patients’ confidentiality.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff within the service had a good understanding of each patient’s mental health, their risk history and their social circumstances outside hospital. Occupational therapists supported patients to pursue their interests and hobbies.

Staff ensured that people could obtain information on treatments, local services, people’s’ rights and how to complain.

People had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. The service employed a chef who could adapt the menu to meet any requirements or preferences.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. This included access to religious leaders such as imams or chaplains. There was a multi-faith room available to all patients.

Staff facilitated a family support group for family members of patients undergoing treatment for addiction or substance misuse. Family members could continue attending this group for a year after their loved one was discharged and feedback from people we spoke with was very positive about this support.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so they knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff made sure patients could access information on their rights and how to complain. Up to date information about the Mental Health Act, advocacy, the Care Quality Commission and making complaints was displayed on notice boards on all the wards. Patients were given information about their rights and were able to feedback to staff their views and wishes during 1-1 meetings with their key nurse, therapy sessions, during ward rounds and discharge planning meetings and community meetings.

Patients could make phone calls in private. Staff did not restrict patients’ access to their mobile telephones unless there was a clinical reason to do so.

Patients could make their own drinks and snacks and were not dependent on staff. Patients always had access to hot and cold drinks and fresh fruit and snacks.

The service offered a variety of good quality food. Following patient feedback, the service had recently re-introduced a freshly cooked menu rather than using pre-prepared meals from a food service provider. Patients told us the food was now good, and they could choose from a variety of options on the daily menu. Patients with specific dietary needs were catered for.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. The service responded to these and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff introduced patients to the ward and the services as part of their admission. Patients told us they were given a welcome pack on arrival.

Staff involved patients and gave them access to their care planning and risk assessments. Patients met with their keyworker for 1-1 sessions once a week.

Patients could give feedback on the service and their treatment and staff supported them to do this. Staff held a weekly community meeting where patients could express their views on the service and make suggestions for improvements to the ward. Staff displayed the outcome of these meetings on ‘you said, we did’ notice boards on the wards. We looked at the recent meeting notes and could see that meetings were well attended by patients and staff, including members of the leadership team. Patients were encouraged to give their feedback and ideas and suggestions for ward improvements. People also showed appreciation for each other, as well as discussed complaints, frustrations and interpersonal issues.

Staff made sure patients could access advocacy services. Information on how to contact the independent mental health advocacy service was displayed on a notice board.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of staff and supported and enabled them to deliver person centred care.

Staff said the hospital director and director of clinical services were approachable, supportive and engaged with staff on the wards. Staff and managers said they found senior managers at the hospital to be supportive.

An employee assistance programme was available to staff. The provider’s staff sickness and absence were low with the sickness rate being 3.24% at the time of inspection.

The provider recognised staff success within the service. The service had a staff recognition scheme, where staff could nominate an employee of the month. Each month 3 winners received a certificate and a prize from the hospital director.

Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. Staff had good morale and staff told us they enjoyed working at the hospital and they received good support from colleagues and managers.