The Priory Hospital Hayes Grove

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that hospital leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has remained the same.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

Staff we spoke with said there was a positive culture within the hospital, and they felt supported by their immediate management and hospital director.

Staff knew and understood the hospital’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team. The hospital’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the hospital’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about changes within the hospital and staff shared that senior leaders operated an open-door policy.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. They had an extensive understanding of the service they managed, and the disorders in which the service treated. Managers could explain clearly how the team was working together to provide the service delivered to patients.

Leaders were visible in the service and approachable for patients and staff.

The hospital had a freedom to speak up policy and system in place. This information was displayed for staff to see and there was a freedom to speak up champion.

Patients had opportunities to give feedback on the service they received. For example, through community meetings, one-to-ones with staff and the complaints form.

Managers and staff had access to the feedback from patients, carers and staff and used it to make improvements. Patients were included in deciding their food menu to suit their needs.

Leaders appeared mindful about potential discrimination and inequality that might affect diverse staff groups. Staff members said they felt supported by managers around their needs.

The service employed a diverse team of staff from international backgrounds. Employment practices promoted equality of opportunity. Staff did not raise any concerns about discrimination.

Staff were able to apply to work flexibly. For example, flexible working agreements to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities, health issues or religious reasons.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role.

There was a clear framework of what was discussed in team meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed.
Staff undertook or participated in local clinical audits. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results when needed. Audits included health and safety, infection control, medication, good governance, nutrition and mealtimes, restrictive practice, care plan sharing and a daily medical record check.
Staff maintained and had access to the risk register. All staff were able to escalate their concerns if needed.
Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Staff took patient confidentiality and information security seriously. Staff could access all required policies and procedures through the service’s online record system.
Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. Staff said these systems worked well.

Leaders understood who their partners and communities were and the service worked well with other agencies including health and social care professionals and the local authority safeguarding team. The service had developed a good relationship with local NHS trusts who referred patients to the hospital. Staff engaged with their professional bodies and undertook specific roles within these organisations.

Patients, carers and staff could meet with members of the service’s senior leadership team to give feedback.

The hospital collaborated with the local acute hospital when patients required acute care as part of their admission.

The provider had a quality improvement lead who visited the hospital regularly. We were not informed of any quality improvement initiatives on the ward during our visit.

Staff were offered opportunities to develop and reflect. Mandatory training, supervision and appraisals were available to all staff.

We saw evidence that team meetings, nursing forums and clinical governance meetings all took place in line with their recommended time frames.

The hospital was a formal teaching hospital, affiliated with Canterbury Christ Church University, King’s College London and Goldsmith’s, University of London.