The Priory Hospital Chelmsford

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

At our last inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not moved between wards except for their benefit. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the findings.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

Staff regularly met with patients to understand their views on care and treatment. These discussions took place in one-to-one meetings with nurses and in ward rounds. Staff monitored patients’ conditions and discussed any changes at daily handover meetings.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and friends. Where this was appropriate, families and carers could visit people on the ward and there were rooms that were suitable for family and carer visits. If patients needed it, they were offered encouragement to phone families and carers so that they could stay connected.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to deliver their roles.

Team managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care. This information was presented and discussed in clinical governance meetings.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. The service submitted notifications to the Care Quality Commission in accordance with the requirements of their registration. The service submitted safeguarding referrals to the local authority.

Staff made sure patients could access information on treatment and local services and information was provided in alternative formats if needed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The service involved them in decisions about their care and told what had changed as a result.

During the inspection, we saw that information about how to make a complaint and how to raise concerns with the Care Quality Commission was available on noticeboards on the ward. There were feedback points in the hospital where patients could scan a QR code on their phones which took them to an online form they could complete to give feedback about their care. At the time of the inspection, the service was also specifically seeking feedback from patients regarding their experience of observations, engagement and taking leave.

We saw from community meeting notes that staff and patients discussed complaints and concerns in the weekly community meeting and staff fed back at the beginning of these meetings updates and what had changed since the previous meeting. We saw ‘you said, we did’ boards on the ward.

Staff knew how to acknowledge complaints and tried to swiftly resolve complaints informally with patients. In the 3 months prior to the inspection the hospital director received 1 formal complaint from a patient on Chelmer ward which related to a concern regarding a discharge summary which was partly upheld.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that everyone could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Managers followed a clear admission inclusion and exclusion policy that guided them on the criteria to follow for admission to the service. The service had their own model of care with service aims, objectives, values and a philosophy.

There was adequate medical cover day and night. There were doctors who stayed on site and could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

The average length of stay for patients on the addictions therapy programme on Chelmer Ward was 16 days.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff asked patients about their religious and cultural needs when they were admitted to the ward. We saw an example where a varied menu had been provided for a patient who required halal food.

Staff shared that adjustments were made to accommodate patients with diverse needs. Information was also made available in various formats and languages upon request to ensure accessibility.

The service offered assessment to patients wishing to clarify whether a diagnosis of autism, or autism spectrum disorder was an appropriate explanation of their experience. Autism assessment was undertaken by a multi-disciplinary team of clinicians, who were trained in autism awareness and in using specific assessment tools such as the ADI-R (Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised) and the ADOS 2 (Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule 2).

At the time of inspection, 98% of staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion. In line with national guidance, the service had introduced The Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training on Learning Disability and Autism and compliance for this training at the time of inspection was 90.9%.

Staff made sure patients could access information on treatment, local services, their rights and how to complain.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life

The multidisciplinary team planned for each patient’s discharge and return to their local area. Staff ensured that appropriate arrangements were in place to sustain the patient’s recovery from addiction. This included liaising with health and social care professionals in the patient’s local area and offering ongoing support to family members.