The Priory Hospital Dewsbury

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

We saw examples of care plans that had been based on conversations that patients and staff took part in together, these included one to ones between patients and named nurses and in multi-disciplinary meetings. Following these conversations, we also saw physical health individualised timetables for some patients and evidence that activities detailed on these timetables had been carried out. We were told by family members that staff asked them about their relative so the care provided could be tailored to the patient's needs and preferences.

When appropriate, staff ensured that patients had access to external opportunities to support their daily living, for example access to support to access accommodation and continuing treatment for those moving back into the community and plans were clear as to the continued care treatment that was required.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Where it was appropriate, families and carers could visit people on the ward and additionally there were rooms off the ward that were suitable for family and carer visits. If patients needed it, they were offered encouragement and support to phone families and carers so that they could keep in touch.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community, where this was appropriate. Visits from local religious leaders was also encouraged and facilitated.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. They responded promptly and positively when follow up information was required, and they worked alongside stakeholders to ensure a useful flow of information was maintained.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain to the provider and other regulatory bodies. The information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group. This information was visible on the ward.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients where they were required.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress. We saw examples of regular communications that were prepared for families and carers, where patients had consented.

Patients were given information on how to complain or raise concerns and staff told us that they had supported patients to raise concerns or give feedback in a way appropriate to that patient. There were clear instructions around the ward for people to follow. When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback.

Staff knew how to protect patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately.

Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings. For example, some patients had complained about the food and work was being undertaken to consider their complaints and make changes as a result of this feedback. However, we saw different meal options, appropriate diets for different patients that had been risk assessed and was documented accordingly for staff serving meals to follow and other patients told us they liked the food.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met, they could place wheelchair users in bedrooms closer to other facilities on the ward and in rooms that had more space and the ability to install necessary equipment. Safety pods were made available to patients who required them to allow for greater comfort and safer care and treatment being delivered.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, people with mobility issues were provided with walking aids and shower chairs or safety pods for example.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care, for example, S117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services. Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers and co-ordinators.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which staff who worked alongside the patient group would encourage and support them in the best way appropriate to share their views. Feedback was also sought from family members and carers. We did not see the use of flashcards or other communication tools that could have aided this, however.

Care for people who are nearing the end of their life was managed and communicated in a sensitive and dignified way.Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future, in some circumstances using DNACPR’s. Staff undertook end of life training and there were good communicative relationships with local community nursing teams and hospices. Family members and carers were advised by the ward that they could visit the ward at any time during the day or night.