The Priory Hospital Dewsbury

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

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

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Members of our team spent time observing patients in communal areas and spent time carrying out activities on the ward. Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. They encouraged them to take part in discussions and planning about their treatment and meetings in relation to the operating of the ward. For example, contributing to the development of the menu and the activity timetable to ensure these were meeting patients’ needs.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Patients said staff treated them well, kept them safe and behaved appropriately towards them.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. All electronic records required a password to enter and where paper records were needed, they were stored safely.

The service made adjustments for disabled patients, ensuring disabled people’s access to premises was not limited in any way. Every space, including the gardens and all bedrooms, were on the same level and some bedrooms had extra space for any special equipment that might be needed.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. Some of these resources were available in easy read format. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients, where needed.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters or signers where they were needed.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of patients, this included access to special diets for both religious purposes and to account for allergies and intolerances. Information in care records was transferred to the staff that were preparing meals in the kitchen.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. Some patients went out to churches, there was also an easily accessible space in the hospital for people to use to pray.

Patients told us that where appropriate, patients could access community leave when they were assessed as ready to do so.

Staff knew how each patient preferred to be supported. An advocate visited the hospital several times each week, they told us managers and staff promoted advocacy and were positive about the work being undertaken on the ward.

Staff described how they supported patients to make decisions daily. Where it was difficult to engage patients in therapeutic activities, efforts were made to find areas of interest the patient would respond to. We saw examples of discussions about activities in community meeting minutes.

Staff supported patients to visit shops and facilities in the local town with the aim to increase independence, choice and control.

Care and treatment plans with a rehabilitation focus were developed and evaluated at multi-disciplinary meetings.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls, or physical health conditions and care planned for these accordingly.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. They did this quickly where it was necessary.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened.

Most staff felt respected, supported and valued, but some staff told us that they did not. A small number of staff said they felt like they were not listened to or supported by the senior managers at the hospital. From our reviews of meeting records and speaking to other staff, it appeared that managers were making efforts to ensure that they were approachable and taking time to listen to staff.

The majority of staff said they felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team and about the work that they did with people using the services.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. The service’s staff sickness and absence were similar to the average for the provider.

The hospital recognised staff success within the service, for example, through staff awards.