Priory Hospital Lincolnshire

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

Responsive - 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 good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

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.

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.

Staff carried out comprehensive assessments with patients before admission and reviewed these regularly. They responded promptly to changing needs, ensuring care and treatment plans remained up to date and effective. Plans addressed physical and mental health, as well as emotional and social needs, with adjustments for protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Patients were central to their care planning. The care plans we reviewed were consistent and tailored to individual circumstances, preferences, and needs. The service worked collaboratively with patients, families, and external partners to deliver person-centred care.

Patients received clear, accurate, and current information about their diagnosis and treatment options, including benefits and potential risks. Where appropriate, staff encouraged family involvement. Shared decision-making was actively supported, safeguarding patient autonomy and ensuring their needs were met.

The service promoted staff leadership in specific care areas, such as patient liaison roles. Patient leads worked closely with individuals throughout their care journey, assisting with communication, representation, and administrative tasks.

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.

Staff carried out comprehensive assessments with patients before admission and reviewed these regularly. They responded promptly to changing needs, ensuring care and treatment plans remained up to date and effective. Plans addressed physical and mental health, as well as emotional and social needs, with adjustments for protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Patients were central to their care planning. The care plans we reviewed were consistent and tailored to individual circumstances, preferences, and needs. The service worked collaboratively with patients, families, and external partners to deliver person-centred care.

Patients received clear, accurate, and current information about their diagnosis and treatment options, including benefits and potential risks. Where appropriate, staff encouraged family involvement. Shared decision-making was actively supported, safeguarding patient autonomy and ensuring their needs were met.

Leaders promoted staff leadership in specific care areas, such as patient liaison roles. Patient leads worked closely with individuals throughout their care journey, assisting with communication, representation, and administrative tasks.

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.

The service provided a dedicated family and carer liaison lead. With the patient’s consent, the liaison lead maintained regular communication with families, often on a weekly basis. Families were kept informed about events within the care environment and received updates on the patient’s progress. The liaison lead was readily accessible, offering information and support whenever needed.

The service maintained strict policies and procedures to ensure patient information was managed confidentially and securely in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Staff regularly identified, recorded, and reviewed patients’ information needs, making reasonable adjustments in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

The providers website featured an assistive technology toolbar, enabling users to personalise their online experience. This included options to adjust font size and colour, as well as translate content into multiple languages.

Staff provided patients with accurate, up-to-date information about their care and treatment in formats that were easy for them and their families to understand. Systems were in place to adapt information to individual communication needs and preferences, including easy-read materials and translations. Where language barriers existed, interpreter services were used to ensure clarity and understanding. One patient told us “I do get the information I ask for; my Nurse gives me the information in ways that I understand, and she helps me if I’m unsure.”

Patients, families, and carers were kept informed about care and treatment progress while privacy and confidentiality were maintained. Information on how to raise concerns or complaints was clearly displayed throughout the environment, and staff supported patients in understanding their rights.

Where appropriate, families and carers were involved in care discussions, with processes ensuring timely, accurate, and effective communication and information sharing.

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.

Staff supported patients, and families to provide feedback or raise concerns. Patients knew how to complain, and the service displayed clear information on how to access support, including advocacy and interpreter services, and external organisations, for example, the patient advice and liaison service (PALS). One patient told us, “Staff have helped me to complain before, they helped me to fill the complaints form in, and always told me what was happening, and what had been done.”

In the three months prior to our assessment, the service received 4 formal complaints. 2 of the complaints were from the same patient and 2 were from family members of a patient. We found evidence that all 4 the complaints had been addressed appropriately, documented accurately, information and updates shared regularly with the complainant, and a positive outcome reached for all concerned. Patients were encouraged to share their opinions and feedback during community meetings. We reviewed the community meeting minutes, and found feedback and concerns had been clearly recorded, with any concerns raised being responded to promptly with clear actions, and feedback provided to those involved.

Families and carers were supported to share feedback through multiple channels, including care feedback forms, QR codes, direct contact with the family and carer lead, or by speaking with the service’s management team in person or via telephone.

The service valued feedback as an essential tool for improvement and viewed it positively. Staff received regular updates on complaints and their outcomes, and learning from these enabled the service to identify areas for development and implement positive changes where needed.By involving people in feedback and clearly communicating the actions taken, the service fostered trust and transparency. This approach ensured patients and visitors felt valued, listened to, respected, and included.

Every 3 months, the service completed an audit between patient safety representatives from each ward. They would then complete a patient safety temperature check audit focusing on three areas, participation and engagement, environment and safety and staffing and culture. The patient safety temperature check tools were developed to support Priory as a service to gain a better understanding of what patient safety means to those individuals who were cared for. Action plans were implemented from feedback received from patients’ audits and feedback provided through a Patient Safety meeting, community meetings and ‘You said, We Did’ feedback.

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 and leaders worked closely with external organisations to improve access and ensure smooth transitions between services. It coordinated care with GPs and integrated care boards to plan and deliver treatment and support tailored to each patient’s individual needs.

Medical cover was available 24/7. Doctors and junior doctors responded promptly to emergencies at any time of day or night. Out-of-hours concerns were managed by a night service manager who provided assistance and support. Where patients required additional medical intervention, they were transferred promptly to the local acute hospital.

Staff and leaders ensured patients could access care and support in ways that suited their individual needs. Effective assessment processes helped identify and remove barriers to care, particularly for people with complex needs, enduring mental illness, or protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

Premises were fully accessible, and the environment supported inclusion for all patients and visitors. Staff recognised the wider social impact of care, with the service actively participating in IMPACT—the provider collaborative partnership initiative—working with other providers to improve health outcomes and address inequalities for disadvantaged groups across the region.

Staff maintained strong links with aftercare provision, including crisis services, assertive transitions services, and continuing care. Discharges were clinically appropriate and planned collaboratively with external partners to ensure ongoing care and support, promoting better outcomes for patients leaving the service.

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.

Staff consistently upheld equality and human rights, adhering to all relevant legislation. Reasonable adjustments were made to meet each person’s social, cultural, and religious needs, such as working with independent communication support services and providing information in multiple formats. Religious and cultural leaders were welcomed to visit the unit when requested by patients.

Robust policies ensured compliance with Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) principles. These policies aimed to prevent disadvantage for vulnerable individuals or those with protected characteristics, promote fairness across all aspects of care, and maintain accessibility throughout the service.

Staff actively sought feedback from people at risk of experiencing inequalities or poorer outcomes and used this insight to enhance personalised care and support. Patients were encouraged and supported to share their views, fostering a culture where voices were heard, opinions respected, and feedback acted upon.

The service participated in the patient and carer race equality framework (PCREF), which focuses on improving mental health outcomes for racialised and ethnically diverse communities. PCREF promotes understanding across the workforce, co-produces improvement strategies with racialised patients and carers, and embeds anti-racist practices throughout services to create more equitable and inclusive mental health care.

All staff completed mandatory EDI training, building on existing knowledge to ensure potential inequalities or discrimination were recognised and addressed effectively. The service remained alert to risks of unfair treatment and took appropriate action to address disparities in patient experience and outcomes.

This approach ensured care was inclusive, responsive, and tailored to meet the needs of patients most at risk of experiencing poorer outcomes.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.