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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment 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 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. Observation windows had been fitted in all bedrooms so staff could ensure that patients’ privacy and comfort was maintained when undertaking observations when the patient was in their room, for example, during the night.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff spent time with patients, talking to them and explaining what activities were being carried out, such as personal care or providing refreshments.

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. Patient notes were comprehensive, and all staff could access them easily.

We carried out a short observational framework for inspection (SOFI). This is an observational tool used to help us collect evidence about the experience of people who use services, especially where they may not be able to describe these themselves because of cognitive or other difficulties. We observed staff interacting with patients which demonstrated they were skilled at interpreting their emotions, requirements, and responses.

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 religious and ethnic groups 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 of the more able patients were supported to attend churches off the ward, there was also an easily accessible space in the hospital for people to use to pray and religious leaders also visited the wards to spend time with patients.

Patients told us that where appropriate, patients could access community leave when they were assessed as ready to do so. They had support and help from staff members to do this. 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 supported the more independent patients to visit shops and facilities in the local town with the aim to maintain independence, choice and control.

Care and treatment plans that focused on maximising independence, addressing ongoing cognitive impairment or end of life plans, when appropriate, were developed and evaluated at multi-disciplinary meetings.

We saw care plans that detailed specific risk issues, such as falls, pressure ulcers, diabetes and end of life care. The care plan was documented accordingly with clear plans and guidance for staff to follow.

Risk assessments that identified and responded to changing risk were kept updated and amended accordingly. These also offered a clear plan for staff to follow.

Staff explained to us, when asked, that verbal de-escalation techniques would be utilised in preference to physical interventions. This was echoed by the ward manager and was evidenced in care records.

Staff spoke about knowing the patients that they worked alongside and following care plans or risk management plans to ensure that distress experienced was reduced to a minimum. Techniques included examples of utilising information from life story work.

Most staff felt respected, supported and valued, but some staff told us that they did not. A small number of staff said they liked their immediate team and manager but felt they were not listened to or supported by the senior managers at the hospital.

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 a staff awards scheme. Staff also told us they received feedback from management both verbally and via emails.

Staff were encouraged to and given the opportunity to progress within their role and within the service or hospital.