• Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Archived: Priory Wellbeing Centre Southampton

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

62 The Avenue, Southampton, Hampshire, SO17 1XS (023) 8071 3000

Provided and run by:
Priory Healthcare Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 7 August 2019

Priory Wellbeing Centre Southampton provides therapy and treatment for a wide range of mental health conditions from a location just outside of Southampton’s city centre. It offers a range of outpatient services designed to give patients help and support with mental health difficulties, including: anxiety, depression, stress, eating disorders, and addiction. The service is able to offer treatment to adults, children and adolescents. Patients are either self-funding their treatment and therapy or funded by their insurance company. The service has close links to the Priory Hospital Southampton, offering access to more specialist or intensive services if required.

The service registered with the Care Quality Commission in 2016 and this was their second inspection. We inspected this service in October 2016 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. The service had a registered manager in post.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 7 August 2019

We rated Priory Wellbeing Centre as good because:

  • The care environment was clean and well maintained. Staff routinely carried out environmental assessments to ensure the safety of the environment. Staff had access to panic alarms in every room.
  • The service had enough staff to safely meet patients’ needs. Staff had appropriate skills, knowledge, and experience to provide the right care and treatment. Managers managed staff performance and ensured that staff received regular supervision and their annual appraisals.
  • The service had clearly defined and embedded processes to keep people safe. Staff learned from incidents and complaints within the service. Managers were open and apologised when things went wrong. Patients gave feedback on the service they received.
  • Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, and they knew how to apply it. The service had clear and robust policies in place for safeguarding adults and children.
  • 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 needs. Patients were fully involved in choices regarding their care and treatment. Patients told us that staff treated them as individuals.
  • The service offered patients appointments quickly following referral. Patients told us they felt supported and the service offered a flexible approach to accessing treatment. Staff worked well with both internal and external organisations to provide good handovers of care and treatment for patients. The facilities met the needs of people who used the service and staff accessed interpreting and sign language support if required.
  • Staff spoke positively of working in the service and of 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 Southampton area. The service was committed to working with the community and front line staff to raise awareness of mental health and wellbeing, and offered training, direct support and signposting.
  • The service was well led, and the governance processes ensured that procedures relating to the work of the service ran smoothly. The service had a manager in post with the right skills, knowledge and experience who was approachable and visible.

However:

  • A small number of risk assessments and care plans we reviewed for patients currently in treatment were not up to date or did not have sufficient detail. Additionally, some patients’ care records had not been closed down in a timely manner following treatment. The provider had already identified this problem and had taken steps to prevent this happening again.