Priory Hospital Norwich

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Staff comprehensively assessed people, so the care and treatment provided met their needs, this included their mental and physical health. Staff continued to monitor progression and treatment through risk assessment when patients were going on leave. Patients told us they were involved in their care and treatment through attending ward rounds, where they could give suggestions regarding changes. Staff attended multi-disciplinary meetings where patients were involved in discussions about their care in a co-ordinated way. Staff attended regular team meetings, where good practice was shared. Patients had access to the garden area and external services such as their GP and dentist. Patients had access to a tea and coffee machine and water freely in the communal areas. We observed a patient making their own breakfast and a cup of tea. Patients had regular one to one session with their named nurse, to ensure they had a clear understanding of their care and treatment and could ask questions. There were alarms in the patients’ bedrooms and staff carried radios. Staff told us that alarms were available to wear if required.

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.

Patients told us that they could request to see a doctor when they needed to and had a copy of their care plan. They told us they had regular reviews of their care at ward rounds, which they attended and could give suggestions regarding changes. Some patients told us they were unaware of their care plans while other patients told us they had contributed to their care plans. Families and carers told us they were aware and involved in the patients care and contributed to their care plans.

Leaders and staff told us they fully engaged with the multidisciplinary team. Multidisciplinary team meetings and ward rounds took place weekly. Notes from these meetings reflected each individual patients care plans and notes. Assessment paperwork was completed on admission.

We saw examples of the use of nationally recognised outcome tools such as Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD7), Patient Health Questionnaire (HQ-9) and Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS), which they intent to use to complete patient assessments.

Patients told us they received information and advice about their care, health and how to be as well as possible through general conversations with staff and during one-to-one sessions.

Leaders told us that, as a region, the provider had networks specifically around patient care and treatment. The doctors attended these so they could share cases for peer support and learn of any new developments or changes in treatments.

We saw examples of assessing needs in patients care plans and how things are changed post ward rounds. Audits were checked on assessment paperwork through the services ‘confirmation of care’ document.

Patients told us that sometimes there were communication issues between permanent and non-permanent staff. Even though they felt listened to, patients told us they felt permanent staff knew them better.

Leaders told us that they hold regular team meetings to share knowledge and concerns. They told us about nurse huddles and how these had promoted team building. Leaders told us about systems that were implemented to ensure that each patient had their care and treatment tracked in accordance with the hospital policy in documenting all aspects of their care.

Information relating to care, advocacy access, activities, communication needs and feedback on care were displayed on the ward noticed board for patients access. We saw an occupational therapist assistant working alongside staff to engage patients in activities. We saw an activity board showing who the occupational therapist assistants were and what activities they provided. Occupational therapist assistants covered evenings up to 8pm and weekends on a rota.

Leaders told us about systems that were implemented to ensure that each patient had their care and treatment tracked in accordance with the hospital policy in documenting all aspects of their care. Treatment plans were developed in a multi-disciplinary approach. These were reviewed on a weekly basis through multi-disciplinary ward review meetings and in patients ward round.

Patients told us that they had access to information on making healthier meal choices. They told us that their well being are discussed in ward rounds.

Staff told us they supported patients to make healthier lifestyle choices. Staff told us patients had access to the local area when they had leave. They had access to the gardens all the time and this was well-used in good weather.

Patients had access to external services such as a GP and dentist. Food was cooked freshly on site. We saw a patients food comments book and patients were very complimentary about the food.

Patients told us that they felt staff recognised them as individuals and provided person centred care. They attend ward rounds, where their treatment progress was reviewed and discussed regularly.

Leaders told us the provider had regional networks specifically to discuss patient care and treatment. The doctors attended these so they could share cases for peer support and learn of any new developments or changes in treatments. The multidisciplinary team were fully involved in ward rounds working alongside patients, their family and carers. Staff told us there were monitoring forms to complete for patients.

We saw one to one nursing session in patients notes. We saw copies of ward round notes and changes in patients’ medication and notifications of new side effects in patients care plans. The provider had regional network meetings in place that multidisciplinary team members attended to share good practice. Every patient had regular multidisciplinary ward round meetings where care and treatment were reviewed. Treatment plans were evidence based and multi-disciplinary team monitored outcomes for a continuous improvement. The services were measuring patients’ outcomes using three measures including anxiety, depression and psychosis. At the time of the assessment the service was working on integrating this into their patients record system and training staff to be proficient at it.

Patients, carers, and family did not raise any concerns around consenting to treatment.

Staff assessed and recorded consent and capacity or competence clearly for patients who might have impaired mental capacity or competence. Staff gave patients support to make specific decisions for themselves before deciding a patient did not have the capacity to do so.

We saw examples of capacity and consent in patients’ records. Capacity was discussed at multi-disciplinary team meetings regularly. Records showed capacity was assessed regularly by measuring a patient’s ability to understand, retain and weigh up information before determining that they lacked capacity.

When staff assessed patients as not having capacity, they made decisions in the best interest of patients and considered the patient’s wishes, feelings, culture and history. Capacity was also reassessed after an incident, for example of self-harm. Staff received and kept up to date with training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.