Priory Hospital Suttons Manor

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

We rated Caring as Good.

Staff supported and involved patients in decisions about their care and treatment. Staff treated patients with kindness and compassion and knew the individual patient well. Patients' views were sought and listened to.

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.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. During the assessment we observed interactions between staff and patients as polite, warm and positive.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Patients could access spiritual base activities that were meaningful to them.

Staff said they could raise concerns without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

Staff treated people as individuals and made sure their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service made adjustments for example Westleigh Heights ward had been designed to deliver additional care for the patients and were able to provide end of life care for a patient.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services and patients’ rights. The information provided was accessible, for example easy-read information was made available on wards.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers, when needed.

Patients had a choice of food to meet their dietary requirements and to account for allergies and intolerances. We saw evidence in care plans those dietary needs had been taken into account. Patients had access to a Dietician and a Speech and Language Therapist who visited and advised on easy to chew foods for those who needed it.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. A vicar visited the service regularly. At the time of assessment there were no patients with other faiths however spiritual based activities could be arranged as required. The service had a spiritual room.

The service promoted people's independence, so they knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Patients told us they knew their rights.

Patients had access to advocacy and knew how to do so.

We reviewed 4 care records and saw the wishes of individual patients had been considered.

Staff listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff took action to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or choking risks and care planned for these accordingly. We saw examples of falls risk assessments and dietary needs within patient records.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Staff were trained in reducing restrictive interventions.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of staff, they supported and enabled them to always deliver person centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team.

The service’s staff sickness rate was similar to the average for the provider at 3.4% compared to 3.5%.

The provider recognised staff success within the service. There was an employee of the month scheme.

Staff appraisals included conversations about professional development and how it could be supported. At the time of assessment 100% of staff had received an annual appraisal of their work.

Staff told us they could take breaks.