You are here

The Priory Hospital North London Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 November 2012
Date of Publication: 4 December 2012
Inspection Report published 4 December 2012 PDF

Before people are given any examination, care, treatment or support, they should be asked if they agree to it (outcome 2)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Where they are able, give valid consent to the examination, care, treatment and support they receive.
  • Understand and know how to change any decisions about examination, care, treatment and support that has been previously agreed.
  • Can be confident that their human rights are respected and taken into account.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we have gathered about The Priory Hospital North London, looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 13 November 2012 and observed how people were being cared for. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

We were accompanied by a Mental Health Act commissioner who met with patients who are detained or receiving supervised community treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Our judgement

Before young people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent. The provider acted in accordance with the legislation in relation to patient consent to care and treatment.

Reasons for our judgement

Following an inspection of the hospital in 2011 the provider had been asked to make improvements in the recording of patient consent to care and treatment.

The Medical Director told us that restrictions placed on young people, and their impact on liberty, were kept under constant review. We saw from patient records that the views and wishes of young people in respect of care and treatment were sought. The legal position in respect of young people under 16 years of age and those aged 16 and 17 were clearly understood by the Medical Director. Parental consent provided authority for the care and treatment of under 16s, whereas patient consent was sought for those who were older.

A detained patient we spoke with understood their legal status and rights under the Mental Health Act 1983. They were also aware of the medication they were being given and understood its effects.

However, the provider may wish to note that not all staff had full understanding of the legal position relating to the mental competence of those young people aged under 16 and capacity of those aged 16 and over. For example, in the case of a 17 year old detained patient, we found documentation completed with a parent to obtain parental consent where there was no need to rely on this authority. The young person was already detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. They were also aged over 16 and if not detained in hospital would be legally able to give consent to treatment. Similarly we found forms documenting issues of capacity for a young person of 15 years of age where the correct legal concept is ‘competence’ as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 only relates to those 16 and over.