The Priory Hospital Hayes Grove

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

This means we looked for evidence that the ward met people’s needs.

Our rating of responsive stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not moved between wards except for their benefit. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. 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 results.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

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

We reviewed 4 care records and saw evidence of the use of patients' own words in care planning. Care plans had been written in a way that patients could understand.

Staff listened to patients when they expressed their views and responded appropriately. Staff we spoke with described how they based care around individual needs and preferences. For example, this included supporting one patient to maintain family contact and relationships and supporting another to engage in healthier lifestyle activities. Staff knew which activities individual patients enjoyed and encouraged participation accordingly. Staff empowered patients to make their own decisions about their care and treatment. Where patients did not wish to participate in group sessions, support staff worked with the therapy team to ensure patients continued to receive individualised support.

Each patient had their own bedroom, equipped with an ensuite bathroom and privacy windows they could adjust.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people. Care was flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff ensured that patients who were able, could access activities in the community. For example, day trips and visits to community places.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Carers told us they were in regular contact with their loved ones and could visit regularly.

The service encouraged cultural differences through, religious cultural practices, and diversity focus groups.

Staff said they had good working relationships with external professionals. Care records demonstrated that staff routinely recorded updates and feedback from external professionals and services involved in people’s care. This ensured relevant information was shared, actions were followed up on, and care remained coordinated and responsive to people’s changing needs.

The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The information provided was in a form accessible to patient group.

Information was provided in easy read formats. Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, and how to complain.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed, we saw that the service recorded their referrals and outcomes.

Information governance systems included the confidentiality of patient records.

Both staff and managers had access to the information they needed to do their job. This included information on the performance of the hospital, staffing and patient care. This information was presented and discussed in monthly clinical governance meetings.

We observed posters in relation to patients’ rights and how to complain. Staff completed a daily information board for patients. This included how many staff were working each day.

Staff ensured carers and families and were regularly updated about the patient’s progress with individual consent. The service provides weekly support group to keep carers and families informed.

The service made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Staff we spoke with understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle complaints appropriately. Managers investigated complaints and learned lessons from the results. Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings.

Staff enabled patients to give feedback on the service they received. We reviewed examples of patient community meeting minutes and saw that feedback from community meetings was shared and discussed at clinical governance meetings.

The service had also undertaken a patient survey. We saw the results of the most recent survey and that actions had been identified because of feedback.

However, carers and relatives told us they were unsure about how to provide feedback to the service and highlighted inconsistencies in communication. Following the inspection, the service shared a clear post‑inspection update outlining the actions it intends to take to address the areas identified for improvement.

For example, the service action plan includes strengthening the consistent use of the “keeping Connected” care plan to clearly record patients’ preferences regarding carer and family involvement. Information sharing will be strictly guided by documented patient consent, recognising that patient choice takes precedence over requests from carers. Clinical staff will ensure that consent decisions are accurately recorded within patient records to support transparency, uphold patient rights, and facilitate appropriate communication with families.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Through their referral and assessment process, the service ensured staff could meet the needs of patients who were admitted. When needed, staff made reasonable adjustments for patients.

There were wheelchair access room for people with mobility issues.

There was adequate medical cover day and night. A doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency.

Staff worked to ensure that appropriate post discharge care and support arrangements were in place. Discharge planning was ongoing and involved liaison with relevant external professionals and services to support continuity of care.

At the time of the assessment, there was one delayed discharge. This delay was not due to clinical reasons but related to accommodation issues. Staff were actively supporting the individual to address these issues and continued to work with relevant agencies to progress a safe and appropriate discharge.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored the care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. At the time of our assessment, this was 100%.

The service supported people to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including arrangements for discharge.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Patients on the mental health pathway were admitted with a planned, needs‑based treatment programme, which incorporated discharge planning within the agreed admission timeframe. Once within the service, patients’ support needs and future goals were discussed collaboratively, and staff supported patients to make decisions about their care, treatment and next steps.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for patient’s needs, wishes and feelings. Staff supported patients with advanced decision making.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning care and treatment of people with complex needs. Staff supported patients to transition into the community when they were assessed as ready.