You are here

Priory Wellbeing Centre - Birmingham Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

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.
Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 September 2018

We rated safe as good because:

  • The service had enough staff with the right skills to provide a safe service.

  • The environment where staff saw patients was clean and well kept.

  • Staff were up-to-date with their training and had received a comprehensive induction to the service.

  • Staff reported incidents and learned from incidents.

However:

  • In six of the eight records we reviewed, staff had not always record sufficient detail for the management of each risk identified or the actions they took. 

Effective

Good

Updated 4 September 2018

We rated effective as good because:

  • Staff completed an initial assessment with all patients following receipt of a referral to the service.
  • Care plans were recovery orientated and addressed areas identified at assessment stage.
  • The service increased their range of psychological therapies as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
  • Staff were highly skilled with a range of specialities. 

However:

  • The information recorded at initial assessment varied between clinicians.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 September 2018

We rated caring as good because:

  • Staff treated patients with kindness, dignity and respect.

  • Staff supported patients to understand their care and treatment.

  • Staff involved patients in care planning. Patients had personalised care plans that and covered their presenting needs.

  • The service routinely sought feedback from patients and made changes as a result.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 September 2018

We rated responsive as good because:

  • Patients were offered appointments quickly following receipt of a referral and the service did not have a waiting list.
  • Staff worked flexibly and responded to patients’ individual needs.
  • The service had a complaints policy and responded promptly to complainants.
  • Patients accessed the service easily in a way and at a time that suited them.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 September 2018

We rated well-led as good because:

  • The service used a systematic approach to improve the quality of its services.
  • The service was committed to continuous learning and quality improvement.
  • The service manager was experienced and qualified to carry out their role.
  • The service manager was visible and accessible within the service.
  • Staff spoke positively about their work and the provider
  • The service was committed to working with other services, including schools, and the public to tackle myths and stigma around mental illness. 

Checks on specific services

Community-based mental health services for adults of working age

Good

Updated 4 September 2018