• Community
  • Community healthcare service

Archived: Priory Wellbeing Centre - Birmingham

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Ground Floor, 172 Edmund Street, Birmingham, West Midlands, B3 2HB (0121) 200 3351

Provided and run by:
Priory Healthcare Limited

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 4 September 2018

Priory Wellbeing Centre - Birmingham is part of Priory Group. It provides therapy and treatment for a wide range of mental health conditions from a location in Birmingham city centre. It offers a range of outpatient services designed to give patients help and support with mental health difficulties, including: anxiety, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorders, bereavements, and relationship difficulties. The service is able to offer treatment to adults, children and adolescents.

The service has close links to the Woodbourne Priory Hospital Birmingham, and can therefore offer access to more specialist or intensive services if required. The service registered with the Care Quality Commission in 2015 and this was their second inspection. We inspected this service in February 2017 and they were rated good across all areas we inspect.

The service is registered to provide the following regulated activity:

  • treatment of disease disorder and injury

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 4 September 2018

We rated Priory Wellbeing Centre as good because:

  • The care environment was clean and well maintained. Staff carried out environmental assessments routinely to ensure the safety of the environment. Staff had access to panic alarms in every room.
  • The service had enough staff with the right skills to meet the needs of patients. Staff were trained and qualified to carry out their roles. Managers managed staff performance and ensured that staff received regular supervision and their annual appraisals.
  • Staff carried out mental health assessments of patients in timely manner following receipt of referrals. Staff assessed and reviewed patients’ risks regularly, including assessing the safeguarding risks of children and vulnerable adults.
  • Staff offered a range of psychological therapies in line with the relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Staff used a range of evidence-based assessment tools and outcome measures to support their practice. Patients received therapies tailored to their individual’s needs, Patients were fully involved in choices regarding their care and treatment. Patients told us that staff treated them as individuals.
  • Staff worked well with both internal and external organisations to provide good handovers of care and treatment for patients. The service had streamlined its processes since our last inspection, and this had improved the transfer of patients between services.
  • The service offered patients appointments quickly following referral, and did not have a waiting list. Patients told us they felt supported and the service offered a flexible approach to accessing treatment. The facilities met the needs of people who used the service and staff accessed interpreting and sign language support if required.
  • Staff learned from incidents and complaints within the service. The service carried out thorough investigations of incidents and complaints relating to the service. Patients gave feedback on the service they received.
  • Staff spoke highly of their working and their colleagues. Staff told us they felt supported in their role. The service manager was visible and accessible.
  • Staff held events with partner agencies and the public in the Midlands area to tackle myths and stigma around mental illness. The service was committed to working with the community and front line staff to raise awareness offer training, direct support and signposting.

However:

  • In six of the eight records we reviewed, staff did not always provide sufficient detail of the management of each risk identified or the actions they took.
  • The information recorded at initial assessment varied between clinicians.