The Priory Hospital Dewsbury

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance. The service had made improvements and was no longer in breach of regulations. There was an improved approach to governance which meant that systems were operating effectively. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team. They understood what the purpose of the ward was and how everyone was meant to work together to achieve this purpose. The provider’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service.

Although a small number of staff said they did not always feel listened to, most staff spoke of a positive culture and from our observations we witnessed a positive culture on the ward.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for their service, there were regular team meetings, and the senior leaders attended meetings with all staff on a regular basis. The providers staff carried out independent periodic visits to this hospital to liaise with staff about their experiences of working on the wards.

Leaders, including the ward manager and senior leaders, had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. They had been in post since the previous inspection took place and they had positively impacted on the way the ward operated. We assessed compliance against the previous breaches of regulation that we found, and the service was now meeting these standards.

Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed. They could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide high quality care.

Leaders were visible in the service and approachable for patients and staff. Staff knew who the senior managers were, and there was evidence with team meeting minutes that senior managers attended meetings to speak to all staff.

Leadership development opportunities were available, including opportunities for staff. There were examples of staff that had worked at the hospital for several years who had progressed onto new opportunities within the hospital.

Managers and staff had access to the feedback from patients, carers and staff and used it to make improvements. For example, different activities were developed as a result of feedback and staff were employed to work at the weekend to try to improve the offer for patients over these days.

Patients and carers were involved in decision-making about changes to the service.

Patients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team and did so on a regular basis.

Staff were able to apply to work flexibly, for example, to request flexible working agreements to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role.

There was a clear framework of what must be discussed at a ward, team or directorate level in team meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed. This was evident from meetings and minutes of meetings that we observed. Evidence showed us that governance systems had improved since the last time we carried out an inspection, the hospital was no longer in breach of any regulations. The current systems enabled effective management of risk, issues and performance.

Staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of deaths, incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts at the service level.

Staff undertook or participated in local clinical audits. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results when needed. Actions were clearly set out and followed through where they were necessary.

Staff maintained and had access to a hospital wide risk register. It was clear that this was being used to effectively track current risks, staff colour rated risks so higher ones could easily be seen and there was an effective system of reviewing these risks.

The service had plans for emergencies, for example, adverse weather or a flu outbreak. These were contained within an accessible contingency management plan.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. The information technology infrastructure, including the telephone system, worked well and helped to improve the quality of care. However, a small number of staff told us that the electronic patient record was sometimes slow to access.

Team managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care.

Directorate leaders engaged with external stakeholders, this included local host commissioners and placing commissioners. This work had led to the hospital being able to demonstrate their recent improvements and help assure stakeholders that the hospital can provide a suitable potential placement for people that might need it.

Staff were given the time and support to consider opportunities for improvements and innovation and were motivated to learn and improve. Systems that were in use demonstrated the hospitals commitment to a positive learning culture where information was used to make improvements to practice, which in turn would lead to better outcomes for people.

Staff used quality improvement methods and knew how to apply them. They did this through regular audits and monitoring of work. They spent time discussing outcomes of audits and what actions needed to be implemented where they were necessary.