Priory Hospital Solihull

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff were consistently kind, respectful and supportive. Patients told us staff were “lovely”, “friendly” and always willing to help. We observed warm, compassionate interactions, with staff demonstrating a clear understanding of individual personal, cultural and social needs. Staff promoted privacy and dignity, and responded promptly to requests while recognising when a person needed time and space. Families and external professionals gave positive feedback, describing staff as polite, helpful and welcoming.

Staff supported patients to be as independent as possible. All patients were encouraged to make decisions about their care and daily life, and staff helped them understand their rights. The team responded promptly to people’s immediate needs, including health‑related concerns, and personalised care plans addressed specific risks such as diabetes, allergies or triggers for distress.

Staff wellbeing was strongly promoted. Staff felt valued, respected and supported by managers and the hospital director. They received regular supervision and development opportunities, and wellbeing resources, including occupational health support, were accessible. Staff described a positive team culture focused on delivering the best possible care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We experienced a warm welcome in the hospital. All staff we met were polite, helpful and professional. We observed numerous interactions between different staff members and patients. It was clear staff knew the patients well and had a good rapport. Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious preferences.

Staff placed emphasis upon privacy and dignity. Staff always knocked and sought permission before entering a patient’s private space. We saw staff were responsive to requests made, such as being escorted outside, contacting an MDT member on their behalf, and helping to resolve an issue regarding internet connection on a mobile phone. We also noted how staff respected the times when a patient needed some time and space alone, without immediately engaging with staff.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment and conditions. Patients we spoke with told us about their care and treatment, future plans, and areas they were focusing upon to aid recovery. Staff had directed patients to other services when appropriate, such as external substance misuse support groups, and encouraged attendance at these, facilitating an escort if needed. Staff maintained patient confidentiality.

We spoke with 10 patients. All patients told us staff were kind, respectful and helpful. Words patients used to describe staff included ‘lovely’ and ‘friendly’. Patients told us it was easy to get attention from staff when you needed something. We spoke with 4 relatives of people who were using the service. All 4 told us they found the staff to be polite and helpful. All 4 relatives told us staff had been available when they needed them.

The service had received a number of compliments over the previous 12 months from external professionals. These included praise from a healthcare professional who said interactions with staff and a patient were respectful, polite and highly professional. Another professional reported feeling extremely welcome when attending for a review, noting the positive experience from arrival at reception. An Integrated Care Board (ICB) staff member commended the strong working relationship and positive culture within the service. A care co‑ordinator also provided positive feedback about the regular and effective communication they had received in relation to a particular patient.

All staff we spoke with said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of consequences.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

During the referral process, the MDT considered any specific needs the patient may have, such as mobility aids or adaptions to the environment. All bedrooms were accessible for wheelchair / mobility aid users. Staff considered individual communication needs at the point of referral. Staff provided information to patients in different formats, for example, easy read. Additionally, staff could source information and leaflets in languages other than English, as spoken by the patients. Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and / or signers as appropriate.

Patients knew how to raise a complaint, either through individual nurse sessions, through community meetings, with the help of a relative or an advocate, or through the 2 lived experience partners. Information was visible on the wards about patients’ rights, how to make a formal complaint, how to contact CQC, advocacy and solicitors. The therapy team had ample information about accessing local services, for example, support groups, the library, local places of worship or advice centres.

Patients had access to a choice of meals that met the dietary requirements and preferences of different religious and ethnic groups. Staff clearly documented any food intolerances or allergies and ensured relevant staff were informed.

The hospital had a multi-faith room for the use of patients, staff and visitors. This was a quiet space which could be used for prayer and reflection. One patient told us how they attended a local church weekly. We saw in care records that staff had facilitated escorted visits to other places of worship, in line with individual preference and requests.

We heard about a ‘coping skills’ group the hospital had run, which had been co-produced by a member of the psychology team and patients. The patient got the chance to introduce the session and talk about how they cope in certain situations. The staff member present supported the session by expanding on the skills and advised attendees how this may help them. Examples of coping strategies covered included grounding techniques and relaxed breathing.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at promoting people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff across the hospital consistently and proactively encouraged patients to be as independent as possible. Comprehensive clinical assessments undertaken by the multidisciplinary team identified what mattered most to each patient and the areas they wished to develop or improve. Care plans were highly individualised and reflected individual strengths, goals and aspirations. Ongoing care and treatment were reviewed during regular MDT meetings, ensuring plans remained responsive to their wishes and progress.

Patients were well informed about their rights, whether they were informal or detained under the Mental Health Act. Staff took time to explain these rights in ways patients could understand and repeated information when needed. Staff provided information in accessible formats where appropriate. Patients we spoke with said they felt listened to, had a strong voice in their care and treatment, and were actively involved in decisions about both their own support and the day‑to‑day running of the hospital.

Patients were encouraged and supported to share their views and influence change. We reviewed community meeting minutes across all wards and saw meetings were held weekly. At the start of each meeting, staff reminded all present that the space was safe, inclusive and that all views were valued. A consistent agenda enabled patients to raise concerns, make suggestions and give feedback on areas such as the ward environment, maintenance, food and activities. We observed part of a community meeting and saw that everyone had the opportunity to speak freely and be heard.

Patients could clearly see how their feedback led to action. Each ward displayed a ‘You Said, We Did’ board. We saw many examples of changes made in direct response to requests. These included providing fresh fruit daily, buying a smoothie maker, issuing food cupboard keys on Millison ward, and approving the purchase of a games console.

Many patients spoke proudly about their involvement in improving the environment and wider service. This included decorating communal areas, displaying artwork and contributing to hospital projects. Lived Experience Partners played a meaningful and influential role, attending clinical governance meetings, taking part in staff recruitment interviews and contributing to service‑wide initiatives such as garden development and patient safety work. Patients also described events that helped create a strong sense of community, including a summer BBQ, outdoor cinema evenings, a Christmas party at a local village hall and a recent trip to the zoo.

The service actively supported patients to develop skills, confidence and leadership. One patient had developed an interest in yoga and was supported to deliver yoga sessions for both staff and patients. Another patient, with a passion for writing poetry and music, was being supported to plan teaching sessions for others.

The service created meaningful opportunities for patients to take on valued roles. Some patients worked alongside the occupational therapy team to develop an on‑site coffee shop, transforming an arts and crafts room into a welcoming space for staff and patients. One person worked as a barista, supporting independence, confidence and a sense of purpose.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues and ensured patients had corresponding care plans. For example, we saw there were patients who had diabetes and were at increased risk of potential health complications, requiring regular monitoring. These patients had seen relevant external healthcare professionals for specific monitoring and ongoing support of their condition. Staff had reflected this within care records and had recorded any specific advice or recommendations following appointments. Care plans were comprehensive and clearly explained how blood sugars were monitored, what the optimum levels were, and how to support the patient if these were to low or too high.

Staff updated individual risk assessments routinely, or as and when there was an incident or new or emerging risk. Every patient had a positive behavioural support plan (PBS). We saw that where patients were at risk of physical aggression towards others, staff had worked with them to create a reactive PBS. Staff used de-escalation techniques and strategies identified within the reactive PBS to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened.

Staff clearly recorded any allergies, sensitivities or significant other risks on the electronic notes system so all staff were aware.

Patients and relatives we spoke with told us that staff were readily available as and when they needed them. We observed staff responding immediately to patients request during our inspection.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

All staff we spoke with told us they felt respected, supported and valued by their line managers and the hospital director. Staff were overwhelmingly positive about how they worked together to provide the best possible care for patients. They felt proud and privileged to work with the patients at this hospital. The MDT clearly worked well together to benefit patients’ progress and aid their recovery. Staff spoke highly of the organisation and support available to them if they wanted to progress in their career.

Managers ensured all staff had an annual appraisal which included conversations around personal and professional development, training needs or specific areas of interest, and ongoing career development. Tailored objectives were agreed for the 12-month period ahead. We saw how a number of staff had been supported professionally to enhance their skills and knowledge, to support the patient group. For example, one healthcare assistant was being supported to undertake their registered nurse training. We saw many staff had received additional training and were mental health first aiders. A recent initiative was the development of the autism lead role, for which a healthcare assistant had been successful in achieving.

Staff told us they felt supported in terms of their own physical and mental health needs. Managers could refer staff for additional support and counselling through an occupational health service if needed. One staff member explained that if a staff member was injured at work and were absent as a result of this, they were paid for the first 3 days of absence (which was different from the general sickness procedure). Managers kept in touch with staff who were absent to check on their wellbeing. This was mutually agreed between the staff member and their manager. We saw when staff had been absent long term, a mutually agreed phased return had been supported.

The hospital had put a lot of effort into making a pleasant, spacious and comfortable space for staff to take their allocated breaks. The room had comfortable seating, facilities to make hot and cold drinks as well as a fridge to store food. Staff also had access to a separate shower.

The provider recognised staff success within the hospital. Every month, staff were nominated for a ‘values champion’. Staff were nominated following positive recognition, feedback from patients and through compliments received. Five staff were selected every month and received a token of gratitude in the form of a £10 voucher.