Woodbourne Priory Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people were not always treated with dignity and respect or treated as individuals. Not all staff treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion. The service did not always treat patients as individuals or make sure patient’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. The service did not always promote people’s independence in relation to accessing activities. Informal patients’ rights to leave the ward freely were not always clearly explained or displayed on the ward. Staff did not always support patients with activities outside the service and activities were cancelled at short notice

The service was in breach of regulation 9 for person centred care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion.

We observed positive interactions between staff and patients. Staff were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Feedback from patients across the ward was however, mixed with one patient telling us that there named nurse was excellent and listened to them. They also praised how other staff had gotten to know them and their distress signs. However, all patients spoken to raised concerns about bank staff and staff that were brought from other wards not fully understanding their needs. Two patients told us that one staff member had made unhelpful comments about their weight and did not always treat them and their belongings with dignity and respect. One patient told us that their privacy was not always respected with staff leaving their door open. We reviewed care plans and spoke to staff around concerns raised by the patient, and they were able to show us steps taken to ensure their dignity and respect were considered whilst also keeping them safe from harm.

These issues were brought to the attention of leaders who were completing an investigation.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Although one patient said that they found MDT’s ‘intense’ and did not feel they always got answers and felt confused afterwards.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients, and we observed that all paperwork was securely filed away or stored electronically

Staff could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences. Managers told us how staff would come to them with concerns, and they had an open-door policy. All the staff we spoke to praised the ward manager as being open and approachable if they had concerns about discrimination.

We scored the service as 1. The evidence showed significant shortfalls. The service did not treat patients as individuals or make sure patient’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences.

Staff and patient interactions did not always demonstrate that staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient. One patient told us that staff didn’t always follow their care plans. They stated that some staff act like the patient was ‘faking it’ when they became unwell and didn’t listen to how they would like to be treated after an incident.

We saw in 2 patients records on Oak ward that they could not freely leave the ward despite being informal patients. There were clear requests in the MDT patient notes requesting leave, but staff recorded that this had not taken place due to risk concerns. Care plans referred to informal patients as having no ‘prescribed leave’. A draft leaflet for informal patients on Oak Ward, relating to their rights, was shared by the provider. However, it was stated in the leaflet that “you can ask to leave” rather than “you have the right to leave.” It was indicated by the provider that this wording was not being applied in practice. The draft was shared as evidence of an ongoing commitment to ensuring that informal patients’ rights were being communicated.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, and how to complain. Information was displayed on the walls of the wards, such as safeguarding information and ward activities.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. However, patients told us that food items were sometimes out of stock or changes made at the last minute which did not reflect their preferences.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. 

Staff told us they supported patients to have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Patients reported being involved in their care through attendance at meetings and were able to share their views.

Staff supported some patients to apply for and attend university. We spoke to 5 patients on Oak ward and all commented that there were some activities but not enough to stop them from becoming bored. One carer told us how they saw that activities such as ‘snack off the ward’ were cancelled at the last minute which had a negative impact on patients.

Patients told us they were able to call family and carers told us how their family members were updated by staff on their progress. Patients had free access to their own mobile phones and were able to make calls in private. Staff supported patients to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them. The service, however, had limited space for visitors, and so most visits took place in patients’ bedrooms.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were made aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues through the communication meeting and handovers. Care plans showed completed risk assessments for physical health issues and clear actions for managing them.

Patients told us that they felt listened to and staff had been responsive to their needs. They were able to give examples of staff listening to them and getting to know their triggers for becoming unwell. A patient told us that when restraint was used, it was done in the right way to help and keep them safe.

However, 2 patients told us that some of the staff were not always responsive and did not react when a patient had a medical episode in the way that they felt that they should have. Staff were aware of these concerns and were looking at how best to support all patients involved. They also shared how they worked with other partners to ensure the suitability of the ward for patients with complex needs, looking at alternative placements if required.

All staff we spoke to were passionate and committed to supporting patients to receive quality care. We observed staff responding to immediate needs of patients and spending time eating snacks in the dining room or completing diamond art with patients in the lounge.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff we spoke to told us they felt respected and supported as leaders valued feedback equally from all staff. Staff said they worked well together and enjoyed coming to work.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an external health service. Staff were also encouraged to take part in reflective practice and the psychologist held staff sessions to offer support.

Staff told us they had conversations about career development and how it could be supported. Some of the leaders within the service had worked their way up through the organisation and others explained the opportunities were there to develop and progress if they wanted to. For example, the ward manager had worked at the Priory for 9 years and had acted up as an interim manager before being offered the role. They were currently the site NG trainer and were about to become regional trainer, all of which had been supported by the Priory.

The Priory recognised staff success within the hospital and as a provider. We saw examples, such as, staff awards where staff were nominated for outstanding work in various areas. Staff members were recognised for long service such as a doctor on the ward who had worked at the Priory for 40 years. Managers celebrated events throughout the year and rewarded staff with treats such as ice cream vans and pizzas.