The Priory Hospital Woking

Updated 10 February 2023

The Priory Hospital Woking is run by Priory Healthcare Limited. The Priory Hospital Woking is registered to provide:

Treatment of diseases, disorder or injury, assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.

The hospital has an acute treatment programme for a range of conditions which include depression, stress and anxiety. The hospital also provides a treatment programme for patients with addiction issues with substances and behaviour and provides medically assisted detoxification to patients who require this.

The Priory Hospital Woking is a thirty three bed purpose-built hospital for adults with a mental illness. At the time of the inspection there was only one patient detained under a section of the Mental Health Act (1983).

The hospital is split into two wards, Cedar ward has 16 beds for men and Maple ward has 17 beds for women.

We carried out this focused inspection because at our last inspection in 2021 we found areas for improvement continued to remain and we took enforcement action. Following the 2021 inspection the hospital responded immediately to the concerns and the hospital provided the CQC with an action plan to address all the concerns. We monitored the progress of the action plan during 2021 with regular engagement meetings. We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met the required standards.

This report only covers our findings in relation to the key questions: Safe and Well led which contain the previous concerns. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection

What people who use the service say

We spoke with seven patients across the two wards who gave us a very positive view of their experiences in the wards. They felt the staff treated them like well and the atmosphere in the wards was relaxed and safe. Patients told us they felt involved in their care planning and decision making and were able to be supported by their family members in the care planning process.

The patients told us that staff were wonderful and couldn’t do enough for them. They told us the food was amazing, that staff managed incidents well and that the doctors were good.

All patients felt the wards were clean and comfortable.

Updated 10 February 2023

Our rating of this location improved. We rated it as good because:

• The service provided safe care. The ward environments were safe, clean and well furnished. The wards had enough nurses and doctors. Staff assessed and managed risk well. They analysed and minimised the use of restrictive practices through clinical governance, they managed medicines safely and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients and in line with national guidance about best practice. Staff engaged in clinical audits to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
• The ward teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the wards. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. The ward staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with those outside the ward who would have a role in providing aftercare.
• Although there was minimal use of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities safely.
• Patients reported that staff treated them with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood their individual needs. They actively involved patients, families and carers in care decisions.
• The service managed beds well so that a bed was always available locally to a person who would benefit from admission and patients were discharged promptly once their condition warranted this.
• The service was well led and the governance processes ensured that ward procedures ran smoothly.

However:

• Maple Ward, the female only ward had no signage outside the doors to the ward indicating it was a female only area. This meant it was sometimes difficult for male patients to differentiate between the ward areas.

Updated 10 February 2023

• The service provided safe care. The ward environments were safe, clean and well furnished. The wards had enough nurses and doctors. Staff assessed and managed risk well. They analysed and minimised the use of restrictive practices through clinical governance, they managed medicines safely and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients and in line with national guidance about best practice. Staff engaged in clinical audits to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
• The ward teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the wards. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. The ward staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with those outside the ward who would have a role in providing aftercare.
• Although there was minimal use of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities safely.
• Patients reported that staff treated them with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood their individual needs. They actively involved patients, families and carers in care decisions.
• The service managed beds well so that a bed was always available locally to a person who would benefit from admission and patients were discharged promptly once their condition warranted this.
• The service was well led and the governance processes ensured that ward procedures ran smoothly.

However:

• Maple Ward, the female only ward had no signage outside the doors to the ward indicating it was a female only area. This meant it was sometimes difficult for male patients to differentiate between the ward areas.