The Priory Hospital Roehampton

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

There was no mixed sex accommodation. Patients had access to their own bedrooms which they could personalise and en-suite facilities. Patients had access to outside space that was easily accessible. Newly admitted patients had a care plan and risk assessments within 24 hours of admission. Patients had access to a range of intervention in line with national guidance for children and young people. However, some patients told us food quality was poor. Feedback from carers was mixed for example some carers told us patients’ needs were not always met.

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.

Children and young people we spoke to told us they could make phone calls in private. Children and young people were able to make their own hot drinks and snacks and were not dependent on staff. Some patients told us the food quality was poor. This issue was picked up in our inspection in 2023. Since then, the provider completed a hospital wide patient survey on the food provision. The service received feedback from 61 out of 74 patients across the 2 CAMHS wards. The survey results showed children and young people scored 4/5 stars for taste, temperature and presentation and 5/5 stars for meeting patients’ dietary requirements. The service catered for individual dietary requirements including halal, vegan, dairy free. In addition to this, the service introduced an electronic ordering process for food which allows children and young people to communicate their exact needs directly with staff in the food kitchen.

Care plans were holistic and personalised. Staff we spoke to told us patients were involved with their care plans. Patients sat with key workers to develop care plans personalised to them. Staff told us they respected patients’ decisions on how much to involve their parents.

Each young person had their own bedroom, which they could personalise. We observed bedrooms that had belongings and decorations. Children and young people had a secure place to store their personal possessions. Staff used a full range of rooms and equipment to support treatment and care. The service had quiet areas and a room where children and young people could meet with visitors in private. Children and young people had access to outside space which could be easily accessed.

The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which staff adhered to. Staff assessed and recorded capacity clearly for patients who had impaired mental capacity. Staff used interventions that were in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. These included dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT), cognitive behavioural therapy, CBT skills group and family therapy. Staff used other tools and scales to review anxiety and depression within children and young people. Children and young people had access to a range of group therapy sessions including sensory group, art therapy, independent journaling (individual reflection), education, yoga, community meetings, DBT groups, music therapy, family therapy and 1:1 groups.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Patients we spoke to told us they knew how to raise a complaint if they needed to.

Staff ensured children and young people had access age-appropriate information on treatment, local services, their rights and how to complain. The service had information leaflets available in languages spoken by children, young people and the local community when needed. Managers had access to interpreters and signers when it was required for children and young people to have them. Children and young people had access to spiritual, religious and cultural support.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.