You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 March 2018

We rated Priory Hospital Preston as good because:

  • There were appropriate measures in place to safely manage the ward layout and environmental risks. This included the use of closed circuit television and the use of mirrors.

  • Staffing levels were adequate and could be increased when needed. There were few vacancies and patients had regular one to one time with nurses. There were effective systems in place to ensure that all staff received appropriate mandatory training this ensured that staff were up to date with the correct training.

  • Comprehensive care plans and risk assessments were fully completed and up to date. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly as part of a multi-disciplinary discussion. Patients were encouraged to be involved in their care plans and patient views were clearly documented within care plans.

  • The electronic care record system was easy to navigate and locate patient documents. This meant that staff could work efficiently and access patient information without delay.

  • There was good psychological provision on Bartle ward that was specific to eating disorders. This meant that patients were receiving holistic care as recommended by national guidance. There were structured patient activity programmes on each ward that were specific to meet patient needs. Patients met to discuss which activities they would prefer and suggestions were implemented where possible.

  • Staff demonstrated kind and caring attitudes towards patients. Patients described staff as approachable and helpful. The values and behaviours of the hospital were embedded throughout the service. Staff were aware of the values and behaviours expected of them and were rewarded for demonstrating them in practice. Staff morale was high. Staff enjoyed their work and strived to achieve the best for patients. There were positive results from the staff engagement survey.

  • There were many ways patients could give feedback about the service. We saw evidence of patient suggestions being considered and acted upon. There was a robust complaints procedure for staff to follow. Complaints were fully investigated and information shared with staff and other appropriate people.

  • The service aimed to provide patients with continuity of care. The service had agreements with local NHS providers that patients admitted to the hospital would remain there until their inpatient treatment was complete. There was effective multi-disciplinary working on both wards. A range of staff disciplines met regularly to decide care and treatment options for patients.

  • The food was described by patients as high quality. Patients gave very positive feedback about the food and choices available.

  • The service was beginning to implement the safe wards programme. Staff were using positive words and relaxation boxes were available for patients.

However:

  • There was no female only lounge on Bartle ward.

  • Physical health assessments on admission to the hospital had been omitted and not followed up for two patients. This meant that staff were unaware of any potential physical health issues and unable to initiate treatment.

  • Staff had a limited understanding of how to conduct a capacity assessment and implement the best interest’s checklist.

  • Staff had not received regular managerial supervision. This was not in line with the providers policy.

  • As required medication was not being reviewed in accordance to the national guidance.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 28 March 2018

We rated safe as requires improvement because:

  • There was no female only lounge on Bartle ward.

However,

  • Clinic rooms and ward areas were clean and tidy. Medical equipment was easily accessible and in good order.

  • There were appropriate measures in place to safely manage the ward layout and environmental risks. This included the use of closed circuit television and the use of mirrors.

  • Staffing levels were adequate and could be increased when needed. There were few vacancies and patients had regular one to one time with nurses.

  • Comprehensive risk assessments were fully completed and up to date. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly as part of a multi-disciplinary discussion.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 March 2018

We rated effective as good because:

  • Care plans were fully completed and up to date. Care plans contained patient views and patients had been offered a copy of their care plan.
  • The electronic care record system was easy to navigate and locate patient documents. This meant that staff could work efficiently and access patient information without delay.
  • There was good psychological provision on Bartle ward that was specific to eating disorders. This meant that patients were receiving holistic care as recommended by national guidance.
  • There was effective multi-disciplinary working on both wards. A range of staff disciplines met regularly to decide care and treatment options for patients.

However,

  • Physical health assessments on admission to the hospital had been omitted and not followed up for two patients. This meant that staff were unaware of any potential physical health issues and unable to initiate treatment.
  • Staff had a limited understanding of how to conduct a capacity assessment and implement the best interests checklist.
  • Staff had not received regular managerial supervision. This was not in line with the providers policy.
  • As required medication was not being reviewed in accordance with the national guidance.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 March 2018

We rated caring as good because:

  • Staff demonstrated kind and caring attitudes towards patients. Patients described staff as approachable and helpful.

  • Patients were encouraged to be involved in their care plans and patient views were clearly documented within care plans.

  • There were many ways patients could give feedback about the service. We saw evidence of patient suggestions being considered and acted upon.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 March 2018

We rated responsive as good because:

  • The service aimed to provide patients with continuity of care. The service had agreements with local NHS providers that patients admitted to the hospital would remain there until their inpatient treatment was complete.

  • The food was of excellent quality. Patients gave very positive feedback about the food and choices available.

  • There were structured patient activity programmes on each ward that were specific to meet patient needs. Patients met to discuss which activities they would prefer and suggestions were implemented where possible.

  • There was a robust complaints procedure for staff to follow. Complaints were fully investigated and information shared with staff and other appropriate people.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 March 2018

We rated well-led as good because:

  • The values and behaviours of the hospital were embedded throughout the service. Staff were aware of the values and behaviours expected of them and were rewarded for demonstrating them in practice.

  • There were effective systems in place to ensure that all staff received appropriate mandatory training. Managers had oversight of training figures and ensured that staff were up to date with the correct training.

  • Staff morale was high. Staff enjoyed their work and strived to achieve the best for patients. There were positive results from the staff engagement survey.

  • The service was beginning to implement the safe wards programme. Staff were using positive words and relaxation boxes were available for patients.
Checks on specific services

Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units

Good

Updated 28 March 2018