Priory Horizon House

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 assessment we rated responsive as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not discharged 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. 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 result.

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 evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Most patients told us that their care and treatment were arranged around their individual needs and preferences. Staff involved patients in developing their care plans and routinely offered patients a copy. We saw evidence that carers were also involved in discussions about care and treatment, and carers told us they felt included, which led to improvements in patient wellbeing.

Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided.

Throughout the assessment, it was clear that staff knew their patients well. Staff were able to describe individual likes, dislikes and personal routines, demonstrating a person-centred approach. Patients valued regular sessions with their named nurse and found weekly community meetings helpful for raising suggestions and staying informed about the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Patients received care and treatment that met their needs from services that were joined-up, flexible and responsive. Staff worked together to ensure interventions were timely and tailored to each patient.

Staff planned effectively for discharge and ensured that patients had access to appropriate post‑discharge support. This included Section 117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services. Staff maintained good liaison with care managers and coordinators, which supported continuity of care and helped ensure patients moved smoothly between services.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. We observed families being involved in ward rounds and discharge planning meetings. Four carers told us they were able to contact and visit their relative without difficulty, which helped maintain supportive relationships and informed decision‑making resulting in visible improvements in their relatives health and wellbeing.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff ensured patients could access information about treatments, local services, their rights, and how to complain.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), and we saw information displayed in different languages. Notice boards were accessible and relevant to the patient group. Posters for Independent Mental Health Act (IMHA) and Independent Mental Capacity Act (IMCA) advocates, general advocacy, and family advocacy were displayed in an appropriate format, ensuring patients knew how to access support. Reasonable adjustments met patients’ communication needs, and staff used interpreters and language lines when required. Posters were in accessible formats to meet the needs of patients on the ward. Patients told us they understood the information staff provided. The patient information leaflet clearly explained key details about what to expect during their stay at the service and offered helpful advice for families.

Compliance with the AIS was evident throughout treatment, including communication, letters, displayed information, care and treatment plans, and rights. Patients had a good understanding of written information and were supported when discussing care plans, medication, and rights.

Staff ensured patients could access information about treatments, local services, patients’ rights, and how to complain. A wide range of information was available for patients and carers at the hospital entrance.

Information governance systems protected patient confidentiality. All hospital systems were computer-based and password-protected.

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. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service collected and acted on patient feedback through forums such as community and governance meetings. Patients confirmed they were encouraged and enabled to give feedback about their care in ways that worked for them, and this feedback was acted upon.

The service informed families and carers about the hospital and made efforts to involve them. Staff invited families to events such as garden parties. Medical staff reached out to families regularly to encourage involvement, including arranging meetings with the multidisciplinary team (MDT) to clarify care plans. Families and carers described the service as “5 stars,” with carers praising the staff as excellent, respectful, and communicative. Carers reported involvement in their loved one’s care, especially following consent being granted, and noted regular updates and effective communication from medical staff, particularly the doctor. They felt confident to raise concerns and found the service responsive to questions.

Staff enabled patients to provide feedback about the service through regular community meetings, surveys and one‑to‑one discussions. This feedback informed ongoing improvements and supported a culture of collaboration between staff and the people using the service.

Patients had easy access to complaint information and told us they knew how to make a complaint. They felt their concerns would be taken seriously and handled with compassion. Staff explained how they managed complaints, and we saw that complaints were recorded using their internal reporting systems with all relevant documentation, including acknowledgement and outcome letters. Complaints were managed in line with policy, using corporate templates and meeting required timescales.

The service regularly received compliments from patients, staff, external providers, and families.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients and their families or carers told us that accessing medical staff promptly at night could be challenging. They also reported that communication between day and night staff did not always meet their needs, which sometimes resulted in inconsistent information or delays in addressing concerns.

Despite the service having wheelchair lift access at the front of the building, we were told that the service did not admit patients who used wheelchairs. This limited accessibility and meant the service was not responsive to the needs of all individuals who may benefit from admission.

However, patients told us they received prompt support when their needs changed. The hospital maintained adequate medical cover during the day, and doctors were able to attend the ward quickly in an emergency. The hospital was located within a reasonable travelling distance of the local acute hospital, ensuring timely access to additional medical care when required.

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 and managers promoted a culture where patients using the service felt empowered to share their views. Patients had opportunities to contribute through community meetings, and our review of meeting minutes showed staff supported patients to share their views.

The provider completed equality impact assessments for policies and procedures to ensure they did not disadvantage vulnerable patients or those with protected characteristics.

Staff received training in equality, diversity, inclusion, and human rights, achieving 100% compliance. This demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting fairness and equity in care delivery and outcomes.

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.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care, treatment, and future. Staff created personalised care plans that reflected patients’ needs, wishes, and feelings.

Staff involved all relevant healthcare professionals and agencies in planning care and treatment for patients with complex needs.

Staff planned for patients discharge collaboratively. Discharge plans were developed with input from home treatment teams, community mental health teams, housing services, social services, and GPs to ensure continuity of care and smooth transitions.