The Priory Hospital Middleton St George

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 this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good.

Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not moved between wards 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. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. 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.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Patients and their carers told us treatment had been arranged around individual needs and preferences. Staff told us they received a good level of information prior to admission and that the assessments at admission helped them with gaps. Staff supported, informed and involved people using the service and their families or carers.

Community meeting minutes demonstrated that patients were offered the opportunity to give feedback about all aspects of ward operations, such as food, activities and the environment, facilities and resources available to them. Where feedback was negative, appropriate actions were raised to try to resolve these issues. We saw that patients had reported maintenance issues within the bedrooms such as lights not working and these had been resolved.

During our tour of the wards, we saw evidence patients could personalise their bedrooms. Patients had lockers in which to securely store their possessions. We saw evidence in care records that decisions around care and treatment were created collaboratively with the patient, and their carers where appropriate. We saw that patients were supported to move on with the next steps of their recovery journey through the discharge process.

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.

When appropriate, staff ensured that patients had access to activities that were of interest to them.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community.

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 notifications to external bodies as needed, including local authority safeguarding alerts, and to commissioners. CQC received appropriate notifications where necessary from the service. Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information, for example, on treatments, local services, their rights and how to complain. This information was available throughout the service on notice boards.

Staff made information leaflets available. The information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group. Easy read leaflets and leaflets translated into other languages were available on request.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress. With the patient’s consent, staff involved carers in care planning, discharge planning and invited them to all patient review meetings. Staff informed families of incidents when they occurred.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

In the 12 months prior to the assessment, the provider had received a total of 17 complaints. Of these 1 was upheld and 8 partially upheld. The largest number of complaints was 8 regarding standards of care, second was standard of food with 3 complaints.

There were no instances where complaints had been referred to the ombudsman.

Patients, and their families knew how to complain or raise concerns. Where patients did raise complaints, they were investigated and they received feedback. Learning from complaints was identified and disseminated through a variety of communications methods.

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.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients. For example, people with mobility issues were provided with walking aids, shower chairs etc.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers/co-ordinators. In the previous 12 months there had been 9 delayed discharges however, these were due to external factors beyond the wards control, and where they occurred, the MDT worked hard to support people, and external organisations to manage this.

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.

All the patients we spoke with felt they were treated fairly, and they were actively involved in planning their care. No concerns were raised regarding discrimination and staff made every effort to ensure reasonable adjustments were in place to support equity in experience and outcomes.

Staff were 100% compliant in mandatory equality and diversity training. The service had links with local support and social groups to support patients, such as religious groups and LGBTQ+ organisations.

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 decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of patients with complex needs.