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 good. At this assessment the rating had remained as 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 staff responded to call bells quickly, even if to explain they would get there in a few minutes if already supporting someone else.

Managers made sure staff, patients and carers could access interpreters or signers when needed. Information on interpreting services was readily available.

A ‘Big Word’ private newsletter was available for patients. A national autistic society booklet was available for patients living with autism.

The ward area was designed to meet the needs of patients. Each patient had their own room with a bathroom. Patients were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural and religious preferences.

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.

There was continuity of care to ensure that all the procedures required from the start of treatment until the end were arranged and joined up. Staff understood the needs and preferences of people with protected characteristics.

A discharge planning tool was incorporated to patient notes and staff could refer patients to community services including social services.

Staff provided a 7-day service with theatres open 7 days a week. Orthopaedic procedures were carried out from Monday to Saturday and there was on call cover for chest care and urgent discharges.

Patients were all given the ward telephone number and advised to ring the ward if they had any concerns post-operatively. Nurses contacted all patients 48 hours following their surgery to check if they had any concerns. There was a system in place to ensure calls and actions taken were recorded.

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

The information used in reporting, performance management and delivering quality care was consistently found to be accurate, valid, reliable, timely and relevant. The service had an electronic quality management system, which monitored the performance of the service through data collection on all aspects of the service including incidents, complaints, mandatory training and audits.

Following our last assessment, we told the provider staff should document information that was key to assessing patient risk clearly and consistently. We saw the patient pathway now included risk assessments which were completed at preassessment and audited within the service’s clinical audit timetable.

The service had put on sign language training for staff when they received a patient on the ward who was living with deafness. We were told an ongoing sign language training was in place. A member of staff had completed a basic sign language training to ensure consenting was tailored to patients’ individual needs.

Patients had provided feedback that they were not always kept informed should there be any delays in theatres. In order to improve communication between theatres and wards, a bleep holder attended the daily theatre huddle each morning. This allowed them to be informed of any issues which could then be communicated as appropriate to patients who were waiting to be collected for their surgery.

All patients were given clear advice about their surgery before they went home. This included how to manage pain, take care of their wound, spot signs of infection, and keep clean by washing their hands and body.

The Priory hospital joined the fruit day for World Diabetes Day movement to raise awareness about diabetes. Staff handed out fresh fruit and Priory-branded tote bags to colleagues as small reminders of the power of healthy choices.

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.

Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. They could make complaints in various ways, verbally, by telephone and by letter or email.

The service had an up-to-date complaints management policy. This policy set out the services responsibility to listen and respond to complaints made about the service and meet its regulatory responsibilities.

>

Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them. There had been 15 formal complaints and 6 compliments for surgery from January to December 2024. Managers investigated complaints.

>

Staff knew how to acknowledge complaints and patients received feedback from managers after the investigation into their complaint. They told us they always tried to address complaints or concerns immediately to see if they could be addressed by the team. Patients were given details of how to make a complaint if the problem could not be resolved. Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service.

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

People did not experience discrimination or inequality. People with additional needs said they did not feel they were disadvantaged. This included making reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities, those with communication difficulties or cognitive impairment. People were listened to when they wanted to share their experience.

>

People were able to access the service when they needed it and received the right care in line with national standards. The service offered free NHS care under the Patient choice government initiative. Patients could either book an appointment through their GP, through the NHS e-referral Service website, NHS e-referral Service line or by calling the Priory team. Patients could phone or email the booking team if they wanted to cancel or rearrange their appointment.

Staff worked hard to remove any barriers to access for patients. There was a strong culture to prevent discrimination and inequalities supported by training and guidance.

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.

The service complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

We saw staff treated all patients with respect. They safeguarded patient dignity and engaged with all patients in a person-centred way and adjusted their approach according to the patient’s individual needs.

Staff tailored the care and treatment they provided to meet the experience of patients. There were processes in place to engage with the local population and to ensure care was tailored to their needs. The processes and policies in place within the service ensured patients were treated in line with requirements under legal and human rights.

From January to December 2024, there were 134 cancelled surgical procedures. Figures provided by the service showed 20 patients were waiting to have surgery for up to 10 weeks, 77 patients were on the waiting list between 10-20 weeks and 43 patients were waiting between 20-30 weeks. Similarly, 17 patients were on the waiting list between 30-40 weeks and 6 patients had waited between 40-50 weeks. Staff worked closely with medical secretaries to maximise the use of available slots and had regular reviews to identify areas for improvement.

The hospital had an intensive care unit (ITU) and could carry out surgery on patients with severe systemic diseases. All patients who had cardiac surgery, complex ear, nose and throat surgeries were taken to the ITU for treatment. Staff ensured patients met the appropriate discharge criteria.

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.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care. Patients told us they were kept informed about future appointments.

The policies and processes in place within the service ensured patients were treated in line with requirements under legal and human rights. The service met the needs of patients where reasonable adjustments were required.

Staff understood and worked in accordance with National Institute for Clinical Excellence best practice guidance around decision making and mental capacity.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated a clear understanding of the trust’s resuscitation policy and ‘ReSPECT’ documentation. The ReSPECT process creates personalised recommendations for a person’s clinical care and treatment in a future emergency in which they are unable to make or express choices.

A physiotherapist told us they had developed and were trying to improve systems where patients had a functional rehabilitation prior to their procedure. This included but was not limited to transferring from a bed to a chair, walking and general expectations following joint replacements. This was to ensure patients could manage expectations and achieve their goals post procedure.