The Priory Hospital North London

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

Our overall rating of responsive at The Priory Hospital North London Acute is Good.

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 ensured that people were placed at the centre of their care and treatment. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and worked in partnership with staff to respond to any changes in their needs.

Patients received care that met their needs and reflected their preferences. Staff met with patients regularly to understand their views on their care and treatment. These discussions took place during one-to-one sessions with named nurses, as well as during multidisciplinary team meetings. Staff monitored patients’ wellbeing and discussed any changes during daily handover meetings.

Each patient had their own bedroom, which included an ensuite bathroom and adjustable privacy windows, supporting comfort and dignity.

Patients were permitted to use smartphones and other electronic devices, subject to individual risk assessments carried out by staff.

Feedback on the food provided was mixed; however, most patients reported that there were options available that they liked.

Patients were able to provide feedback on the service, raise concerns, and suggest improvements through weekly community meetings.

Staff recognised and respected the full range of people’s needs. They took into account patients’ personal, cultural, social, and religious needs and spent time getting to know each individual to better understand their preferences and provide person-centred care.

The service provided person-centred care that met the needs of individual patients. Care was well planned and coordinated from admission through to discharge.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. The hospital had clear processes and appropriate environments in place to facilitate visits from family and friends. During the inspection, we observed several family visits taking place, with staff supporting patients to meet visitors on the ward or to spend time with them in the local community.

Patients were able to book a dedicated visitors’ room for family visits. Where appropriate, carers and family members were invited to attend ward rounds and contribute to discharge planning meetings.

We observed posters displayed on the ward providing information about patients’ rights and how to make a complaint.

The service monitored patients’ Section 132 rights under the Mental Health Act, ensuring that detained patients were provided with clear and accessible information regarding their legal rights and the reasons for their detention.

Patients told us they received a welcome pack on admission and were supported to orientate themselves to the service.

Information governance systems were in place to maintain the confidentiality of patient records. All staff had completed training in information governance and understood their responsibilities in handling sensitive information.

Staff made appropriate notifications to external bodies when required, including statutory notifications to the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

The service provided accurate, up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. Patients were able to access information about their treatment, local services, their rights, and how to raise concerns or make a complaint.

Ward teams had access to the information required to deliver safe and effective care and used this information appropriately. The service collected and analysed data to understand performance and support continuous improvement.

Staff had access to the necessary equipment and information technology to carry out their roles.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback, ideas, and raise concerns about their care, treatment, and support.

Patients and carers understood how to make a complaint and told us they felt comfortable raising concerns with staff, including ward managers. Information on how to raise a concern was clearly displayed in patient areas, and the patient information pack also provided guidance on the complaints process.

Community meeting minutes showed that complaints and concerns were regularly discussed in weekly meetings. Staff provided updates at the start of these meetings, including actions taken since the previous session.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the complaints policy and how to manage concerns appropriately. They supported patients in raising complaints and ensured feedback was provided following investigations.

All complaints were reviewed in clinical governance and improvement meetings, with themes and trends shared across ward teams and the wider service. Staff ensured that patients who raised concerns were protected from discrimination and harassment.

The service treated complaints seriously. Managers investigated issues thoroughly, identified patterns, and shared learning with staff to improve care. Complaints were discussed during handovers, governance meetings, and team meetings, and were used to inform patient care. Compliments were also used to celebrate success and drive quality improvements.

Records from the past 12 months showed that complaints were generally addressed within expected timescales. Where delays occurred, patients were kept informed. All complaints and resulting actions were monitored by the service’s compliance lead.

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

Through a robust referral and assessment process, the hospital ensured it could meet the needs of admitted patients. Where required, staff made reasonable adjustments to support individual needs. Due to the ward environment and the absence of a lift, the service was unable to accept patients who used a wheelchair on Oak Ward. However, patients who required wheelchair access could be admitted to Lower Court, where the environment was suitable to meet their needs.

There was adequate medical cover available both day and night. Doctors were able to attend the ward promptly in an emergency, and an acute hospital was located within a reasonable travelling distance.

Staff began discharge planning early and worked collaboratively with care coordinators and external services to support safe and effective transitions. Staff confirmed that patients were not discharged unless there was a suitable and safe placement in place that met their needs.

Staff received training in diversity and inclusion. At the time of inspection, 96.9% of staff had completed training in equality and diversity in care.

Through discussions with senior managers and staff, there was clear evidence of awareness regarding potential discrimination and inequality that may impact diverse patient groups. Staff demonstrated a commitment to ensuring fair and equitable access to care and support for all individuals.

Patients’ human rights were upheld, supported by established organisational procedures that promoted equality and diversity. Staff showed a strong understanding of individuals’ rights to receive care and support tailored to their specific needs. Notably, 97.7% of staff had completed autism awareness training, reflecting a proactive approach to delivering inclusive care.

Managers and staff recognised their responsibilities to prevent discrimination and inequality, working to ensure that all patients received treatment and support in a fair, equitable, and inclusive manner.

The hospital admitted patients from a wide range of religious and cultural backgrounds. Staff routinely asked patients about their religious and cultural needs on admission to the ward, ensuring these were identified and respected. The hospital also employed a diverse workforce, enabling staff to communicate with patients in their first language where possible. Where this was not feasible, staff arranged for professional translation services to support effective communication.

Patients told us they were fully involved in their discharge planning and in decisions about their care and treatment. They were supported to make informed choices and plan for the future, with professionals working collaboratively to help them achieve their individual goals.

Staff reported that they worked in partnership with patients to make decisions about their care and treatment, ensuring that what mattered most to patients was prioritised.

The multidisciplinary team (MDT) planned each patient’s discharge and return to their local area. Staff ensured that appropriate arrangements were in place to support and sustain patients’ mental health following discharge. This included liaising with health and social care professionals in the patient’s local area to secure suitable accommodation and to establish appropriate packages of care delivered by community mental health services.

We observed discussions regarding patients’ discharge during multidisciplinary meetings, including actions required to ensure safe discharge for two patients. These actions included liaising with the housing department and benefits agency.

We reviewed 6 patient care records and found that discharge planning was clearly documented within patients’ care plans.

The provider worked collaboratively with other independent hospitals, Community Mental Health Teams (CMHTs), and NHS services as required to support effective discharge planning.

Staff confirmed, and records demonstrated, that discharge planning commenced at the point of admission. The service also offered a weekly free online aftercare group to support patients following discharge.

Comprehensive discharge summaries were completed for all patients. For those approaching discharge, plans were discussed in the daily morning hospital meeting to ensure coordinated and safe transitions from the service.