The 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

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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 told us they were happy with the care and treatment delivered by the service; patients also told us they felt listened to and engaged in the decisions made relating to their care and treatment.

The service assessed patients’ individual needs and if required used a “My Hospital Communication Passport,” which helped staff provide a consistent level of care and treatment. Staff knew how to complete this documentation, and how to support the patient, ensuring the patient received person centred care and treatment.

We observed patients attending the clinics and saw person centred care had been given to patients.

The service provided group meetings for patients to attend so they could gain additional information relating to their medical condition, this also provided an opportunity for patients to meet other people with the same medical condition.

The service employed cancer nurse specialists who were available to support the service with delivering holistic counselling and provide staff advice on how to deliver bad news for patients and relatives in a caring and compassionate way.

The service held 3 patient forums whereby they invited recent patients to the hospital to informally discuss their experience and understand areas where the service could improve.

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.

During the assessment we observed there was information on display around the service for patients to give feedback. Patients we spoke with told us they could give feedback to the service after their appointment. The service also provided evidence of feedback had been received from patients to the staff team. This also showed, there was learning and improvements because of feedback. The service accepted both NHS patients and private patients, once the referral had been made the patients were then able to choose a time and date suited them to attend the appointment.

Staff monitored cancelled appointments, from October 2024 to January 2025 the service had a reduction in the number of cancelled appointments they had, the main reason for the reductions in cancellations was due to the increased time consultants were available to attend the clinics.

The service monitored where patients did not attend (DNA) their appointments, the data showed for the months from October 2024 to January 2025 the service had 845 appointments where patients did not attend. The service would also contact the patient to query why they had not attended their appointment to understand the reason for this as these impacted resources.

For the months of October 2024 to January 2025 the service had 19,528 appointments for new appointments, follow up appointments and nurse’s appointments which meant the patient attended their appointment and then were able to see a nurse quickly when needed.

The service monitored referral to treatment (RTT) for NHS patients. The service’s target for 18 weeks performance was 65%. From April to December 2024, gastroenterology and general surgery had not met this target. However, trauma orthopaedics were above the target every month ranging from 78% to 83%. Data showed waiting times scores between April 2024 and December 2025 were all above the 65% target. The service had met their target of 0 tolerance for waits over 65 weeks.

The service had action plans for waiting times, which showed gastroenterology and general surgery, were no longer being provided for NHS patients. For orthopaedics, the service had a RAG rating where the service had one action which was flagged as green and had now been met. Two actions were amber and on target, the service had 1 red action which was for 18+ week breaches to be reduced to 0 by the 31st of December 2025. There was ongoing work in progress to help meet the target.

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

Patients told us they felt information had been shared with them during their appointments, the information had been given in a way the patients could understand, and they were able to ask questions, where they also received a response which they were able to understand.

We observed clinics where the consultant firstly gained information about the patient and how they were feeling, any historic health concerns, pain levels, once this had been given the consultant had a discussion with the patient, giving them time to reflect on the information given and to be able to ask questions if they had any.

The service had information located on the website, and in the waiting, room provided patients with the information they required, or there were QR codes would take the patient to the information they needed.

The service had a policy covered accessible information standard which had been issued in August 2024 with a review date of July 2025.

The service provided care and treatment to private and NHS patients; fees were discussed with patients when needed.

We observed that the service had a large poster in the waiting room explaining the Accessible Information Standard.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had a policy in place which had been issued in January 2023 with a review date for October 2025.

Staff had a good understanding of meeting the needs of the patients and the community.

There was information displayed in the waiting room and clinics for patients to be able to provide feedback about their care and treatment. The service also displayed information for patients, visitors, family members to be able to raise a complaint.

Staff shared complaints that had been received from patients, these had a complaint report attached which identified what the concerns were, which department, with a workflow summary. This identified the date the concern had been raised, the stage when the investigation took place, the stage of feedback completed, then the final stage of responding to the concerns identified. The service monitored complaints to see if there were any themes that could be identified and addressed, to ensure a better journey for patients who used the service.

During post assessment data we reviewed 3 response letters to patients which gave an outcome to the concerns, the next stages, and further information if the patient had not been satisfied with the outcome of the next steps for them to follow.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We observed all patients had equal access to care. The service considered patients individual needs, this included culture, age, disabilities, this was identified before the patient attended the service, this enabled the service to put any additional support required.

The service provided support to patients living with learning disabilities, mental health, this had been observed during the assessment.

The service provided care and treatment to both patients paying privately and having their appointment via the NHS.

Staff monitored waiting times for the service and had clear action plans in place to ensure they met their target of zero waiting times.

Staff told us when a patient books their appointment, a discussion takes place with the patient to identify if they require any additional support such as translation service, a quiet space to wait, so this could be put into place before they attended their appointment.

Staff told us patients were able to bring someone with them if required, however, if they did not bring anyone with them but required support in their appointment this could be supported with a chaperone.

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 told us they encouraged patients to give feedback on their care and treatment; this had been evidenced by information in the waiting room encouraging patients to complete this.

Post assessment data there was evidence the service collected feedback and looked at the positives and negatives, they also looked for themes if there were any, then the service completed learning, to be able to make the service better for patients.

The service employed leads to support patients these included wellbeing, dementia, safeguarding and learning disabilities.

The service had protocols and policies in place to comply with legal equality and human rights requirements.

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.

We spoke with patients in relation to their care, treatment and planning for the future, patients told us they felt staff explained the next steps of their treatment in a way they were able to understand. Patients told us they were able to ask questions if there had been any information they did not understand, and staff explained this in a way they were able to understand.

We observed patients receiving bad news relating to their health, this was clearly explained and what the treatment, next steps were. Doctors took time with patients to ensure they understood the news they had been given and if they needed any further support.

We observed the booking system and where additional support had been required this had been requested.

We observed staff treating patients as individuals and looking at their individual needs to ensure their appointment took place and there were post appointment plans.