Priory Hospital Enfield

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

The average length of stay across the forensic wards was between 3 – 5 years. Staff advised that there were no delayed discharges on the wards at the time of the inspection. The hospital held a meeting each week to discuss referrals, transfers and discharges.

Staff said that they involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. However, patients gave a mixed picture of being involved in their individual care plans.

The service could support and make some adjustments for disabled people and those with communication or other specific needs. The hospital had a sensory room available for patients to use. The service provided a variety of food to meet the dietary and cultural needs of individual patients, for example halal and vegan options. Patients had access to spiritual and religious support, and were clear about the need to be sensitive in respecting the needs of transgender patients.

Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as education and family relationships.

Most patients and carers told us that they did not know how to make a complaint about the service. However, many said that they would find out if they needed to. Information on how to complain was displayed in communal spaces and included in welcome packs. Staff received training in addressing complaints and concerns. Few complaints had been received across the forensic wards over the last 12 months. Staff gave examples of learning from complaints including improving communication with patients, and information provided about why staff were taking particular action.

Staff said that they had received some training in working with autistic people and people who had a learning disability but would value more training in this area.

Staff sought feedback from patients on the ward through questionnaires and regular meetings, and attended training in diversity and inclusion.

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.

Staff developed individual care plans with patients which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed. Care plans generally reflected patients’ assessed needs, were personalised, holistic and recovery oriented.

Staff said that they involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. However, patients gave a mixed picture of being involved in their individual care plans. On some care records it was clear that patients’ views were included in their care plans using their own words. However, this was not always the case. Some patients told us that they did not feel involved in their care and treatment and did not have copies of their care plans.

The service could support and make some adjustments for disabled people and those with communication or other specific needs. However, none of the rooms had ensuite toilet or bathroom facilities. The hospital had a sensory room available for patients to use. Managers made sure staff and patients could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

The service provided a variety of food to meet the dietary and cultural needs of individual patients, for example halal and vegan options. Patients had access to spiritual and religious support, including support to observe festivals such as Ramadan.

Staff were clear about the need to be sensitive in respecting the needs of transgender patients.

The average length of stay on the forensic wards was between 3 – 5years. The targeted length of stay usually depended on how a patient responded to treatment and other clinical related factors. Managers indicated that there were no delayed discharges at the time of the inspection.

Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as education and family relationships. The wards offered weekly programmes of activities provided by occupational therapists and other staff. These included arts and crafts groups, exercise, and access to computers. Patients said they would like to have more activities available to them at weekends.

Staff supported patients to stay in contact with family members, including visits to the service, and involvement in relevant meetings about their care.

Staff provided patients and relatives/carers with relevant information about the wards. Staff were able to provide easy read care plans and documents, and translations into other languages, for those who needed this. A small number of patients and relatives said that they would like to have more information about their care.

Most patients and carers told us that they did not know how to make a complaint about the service. However, many said that they would find out if they needed to. Information on how to complain was displayed in communal spaces and included in welcome packs.

Staff received training in addressing complaints and concerns, 97% of staff had completed this training at the time of the inspection.

Complaints had been received across the forensic wards over the last 12 months included concerns raised about why seclusion was used, leave granted, lost property, and time taken to respond to a patient’s solicitor. Staff gave examples of learning from complaints including improving communication with patients, and information provided about why staff were taking particular action. They had also improved the process for recording property kept in storage on behalf of patients on admission.

Patients were moved between wards only when there were clear clinical reasons, or it was in the best interest of the patient. Staff did not move or discharge patients at night or very early in the morning. Patient transfers were planned and took place at times that were appropriate for the patient and team.

The wards did not have appropriate facilities to support patients with significant mobility needs. Patients indicated that they were satisfied with the choice and quality of food to meet their dietary and cultural needs.

Staff said that they had received some training in working with autistic people and people who had a learning disability but would value more training in this area.

Managers monitored any patients whose discharge was delayed but advised that there were no patients’ discharges delayed at the time of the inspection. Patients generally did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave unless this was due to awaiting appropriate supported accommodation and residential placements.

Staff sought feedback from patients on the ward through questionnaires and regular meetings but acknowledged that they could do more to involve patients in the running of the service, to ensure that people most likely to experience inequality, had the best outcomes possible.

There was high compliance in staff training in diversity and inclusion across the wards at 98%.

Staff carefully planned patients’ discharge and worked with care managers and coordinators to make sure this went well. Community care coordinators were invited to ward rounds, either in person, or via video conferencing facilities.

Discharge was discussed at multidisciplinary team meetings involving community mental health teams and local authorities to ensure that there were no barriers for when the patient was ready to be discharged.

Relatives were invited to ward rounds when patients consented. Some relatives/carers said they wanted to be more involved in planning for discharge and after discharge.