The Priory Hospital Roehampton

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

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff understood patients’ individual needs and supported them to understand their care and treatment. Patients were involved in their care plans and risk assessments. Patients had access to independent advocates. Staff developed holistic, recovery-orientated care plans which were individualised for each patient. The ward teams had access to a full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the ward. Patients had access to a range of therapies suited for their needs. Young people were able to feedback on the service they received via ward rounds and community meetings. Patients told us they were able to voice their opinions in those meetings.

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.

People we spoke to said staff treated them with kindness and compassion in their day to day care. Patients told us they felt safe in the hospital environment. On the last inspection, we noted staff did not always knock before entering patients bedrooms. On this inspection, three patients told us staff always knocked before entering their rooms. Patients told us staff protected their privacy and dignity. For example, patients told us staff protected their dignity during restraint. Patients told us they ensured no other patients were around or watching when a restraint was taking place. Patients felt informed during the restraint process and were advised what would happen next.

Staff gave examples of supporting patients by engaging them in their care. Staff told us patients were involved in ward rounds and in care plans where patients were encouraged to give their feedback and get involved.

Patients individual needs and preferences were understood and reflected in their care and treatment. We saw evidence of this throughout care plans whereby patients individual preferences were noted throughout care plans. This included how patients wanted their needs to be met. For example, some patients wanted help with how to cope with difficult emotions which was noted in their care plans and patients own voice was also used. We saw evidence of patients being involved in conversations about their medication. Patients we spoke to told us they were encouraged to meet with loved ones and had designated rooms to meet family members. Patients told us they could also meet family members in their bedrooms. Patients we spoke to told us they could personalise their bedrooms and we saw evidence of this through our observations of the ward. Patients we spoke to told us staff had explained their section rights with them and discussed treatment with them. Patients told us they were involved in ward rounds and participated in completing their care plan.

Staff treated patients as individuals, considering their protected equality characteristics. Staff we spoke to told us they were able to respond and meet the needs of children and young people including supporting their beliefs and identities. For example, staff members talked about addressing and understand patients’ preferences in terms of pronouns. Staff made a note of patients individual communication needs on care plans. However, at the time of our inspection, there were no patients on the ward with communication needs.

Staffed involved children and young people in care planning and risk assessments and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Young people we spoke to told us staff regularly read their rights to them. Staff encouraged young people to give feedback about the ward. Young people were able to provide feedback in community meetings and ward rounds.

Patients told us staff gave them emotional support and advice when they needed it. Most patients were happy with the food and said mealtimes were flexible. However, two patients said food could be improved for example by including more vegetables or increasing food choices. Some patients felt their was a disparity of food choice between the two wards. Patient told us they felt there was always enough staff on the ward and the ward did not use agency staff. However, some patients told us the service needed more female staff on the night shift. Managers informed us all staff working at The Priory Hospital Roehampton were able to work flexibly across the ward which meant staffing could be adjusted to increase female presence on the ward. Patients we spoke to told us they felt able to raise any concerns they had with the ward manager. Patients also had access community meetings where they could raise their concerns about issues on the wards.

Staff completed care plans with patients to respond and manage patients needs including change to risks.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.