Woodbourne Priory Hospital

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated responsive as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, the service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs and people were supported to plan for their future.

However, the service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and the service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas.

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.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service had not always taken steps to put people at the centre of their care and treatment. Staff developed care plans around patients’ individual needs and preferences. Most care plans included the patient’s voice; however, this was not always evidenced consistently throughout.

Staff regularly met with patients, and we saw evidence that discussions around care and treatment took place in one-to-one meetings with nurses and in multidisciplinary team meetings. Staff shared a form with patients to fill in points they would like to discuss, and this was shared with the MDT although it was not then documented in the meeting notes.

One patient told us that they had been given copies of their care plans, but this was not documented in the care plans we viewed. The patients we spoke to felt that they were included in care planning and MDT’s although one patient stated they found MDT’s overwhelming and another stated that they felt ‘mostly listened to.’ Where consent was given by the patient, family members were involved in their relative’s care.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Staff told us about the weekly carer session for the ward and the monthly carer drop-in session for the whole hospital. We saw that staff had involved families in the patients care and allowed access to MDT’s remotely if they could not attend in person.

The ward had close links with the regional commissioners for eating disorder services which meant they could discuss and access appropriate support for patients. Staff told us the ward worked with other agencies to support neurodivergent patients, whether formally diagnosed or not.

We scored the service as 3. 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 made sure patients could access information on treatment, local services, their rights and how to complain. Key information was displayed on noticeboards throughout the ward including, patient rights, safeguarding processes and activities available at the hospital. The provider had a policy on ‘Accessible Information’ which was followed by staff. Patient information leaflets were written in an accessible format, and the service could access the leaflets in different languages when needed. Managers made sure staff and patients could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

We were not assured that the service was recording all received complaints as required. The ward recorded 4 complaints during the previous 12 months. Three were not upheld and 1 was partially upheld. Issues raised with staff or in community meetings were not recorded on the complaints log. These included issues around changes in planned meals, lack of stock of certain food items, issues with the way in which a staff member had interacted with patients and staff sleeping whilst on observation. We saw there were reoccurring themes in community meetings that were not logged as complaints.

However, all patients said they knew how to complain. Three patients and 1 of the carers we spoke to told us about different issues they had brought to staff. Staff told us that they had addressed some of these issues such as staff sleeping whilst on observation by changing shift patterns. Patients told us that they were not sure what the actions and outcomes had been of some of the issues they had raised. However, a carer told us they saw a change in process after raising concerns with staff although this complaint was not documented in the log and outcomes were not recorded.

Managers told us they knew how to handle complaints, and they had a process in place to escalate issues up to senior management. Complaints and compliments were discussed in clinical governance but there were limited complaints for the ward recorded in the 12 months prior to our visit. Complaints and compliments were shared with all the staff via the patient safety bulletin. Complaints relevant to the ward were also noted and discussed in staff meetings.

Community meetings were held where patients could have a say in issues on the ward. Staff documented patients’ choices about activities on and off the ward, and we saw evidence these activities occurred. For example, at the time of our visit the ward had been decorated for Halloween in line with the wishes of the patients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The ward was located over 3 floors. Managers told us they would always assess whether they could meet a patient's accessibility needs safely on admission. Rooms on the downstairs part of the hospital were most suitable for patients with mobility issues, although lift access was available if required. The service made adjustments for disabled patients and met patients’ specific communication needs. Staff told us they completed occupational therapy assessments for patients who needed additional support.

The hospital provided adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital. On call doctors were always within an hour’s distance should they be needed on site. The local acute hospital was a short distant away and staff could support patients there if required.

Formal patients had access to advocates and other additional communication resources to support them in communicating their wishes. Information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group and there was further work being completed around easy read formats for information leaflets.

We scored the service as 3. 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 within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. All staff completed diversity and inclusion training, achieving 100% compliance at the time of inspection.

The service admitted patients from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds. Staff asked patients about their religious and cultural needs when they were admitted to the ward. Staff from different ethnicities were encouraged to share their cultures with the patients. The service also held events celebrating cultural and religious festivals.

Staff shared that adjustments were made to accommodate patients with diverse needs. Information was also made available in various formats and languages upon request to ensure accessibility. Translation services had also been made available.

We scored the service as 3. 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 informed choices about their care and plan their future. We found evidence of discharge planning in care records reviewed. The multidisciplinary team worked in partnership with external agencies including the regional commissioners for eating disorders and community team to support future planning.

For patients who had complex needs we saw that staff ensured that all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment.

Staff carefully planned patients’ discharge we saw evidence of discharge planning within care plans, multidisciplinary meetings and patient ward rounds. Staff supported patients with transitions into future services and placements. Feedback from patients had been positive about the level of support they had received around discharge although some were not yet ready to start this process.

Patients were supported to increase the time they spent off the ward in their home setting to prepare them for returning upon discharge. Community teams regularly attend the ward and worked closely with the MDT in discharge planning. Staff included families in the transition and involved them in therapeutic work to help them understand the support patients would need after discharge.