Burton Park

Updated 25 March 2024

Priory Burton Park is a 50-bedded, neuro rehabilitation service, who predominantly provide care and treatment for patients with acquired or traumatic brain injuries, including stroke. The service also offers continuing care for people who have progressive neurological conditions, such as Huntington’s disease and early onset dementia. The hospital aims to deliver person centred care with specialist targeted neurological rehabilitation, with focus upon the physical, functional, cognitive, emotional, and social needs of people.

The hospital has three separate units:

Warwick is a 15-bed ward for people with an acquired brain injury with associated complex neurological physical needs, who may also need support in communicating feelings or distress. The unit also accommodates people who have neurological conditions, requiring ongoing care and support. The unit accommodates males and females.

Cleves unit has 26 beds, with the focus being upon rehabilitation for those who need comprehensive rehabilitation and support. The ward accommodates people with an acquired brain injury with complex neurological needs, who may also need support in communicating feelings or distress. The unit accommodates males and females.

Dalby was previously a 9-bed unit for people who had made significant progress and were at the pre-discharge stage of their recovery journey, with emphasis being upon community access. However, this was closed at the time of inspection. Senior management were having ongoing discussions about re-opening and the purpose of this unit.

The service had a relatively new hospital director in post, who was going through the process of becoming the registered manager. The previous interim manager continued to hold the responsibility of the registered manager, pending CQC approval of registered manager status of the hospital director. The hospital director and the registered manager had regular contact. The hospital director continued to be supported by both the registered manager, and the managing director of the company.

This location is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The last inspection was in December 2021. We inspected all five key questions. The inspection also checked compliance against previous enforcement action, which consisted of warning notices for Regulation 12 – Safe care and treatment; Regulation 17 – Good governance and Regulation 18 – Staffing. The inspection team found the service had met the warning notices requirements and had addressed concerns. However, the provider needed more time to recruit more staff and to embed the rehabilitation and recovery model. The hospital was rated requires improvement under each key question. The overall rating therefore following the last inspection in December 2021 was requires improvement.

Updated 25 March 2024

Our rating of this service went down. We rated it as inadequate because:

• Staff had failed to follow the Mental Health Act Code of Practice when caring for a patient in long term segregation. Staff had not recognised this as segregation despite the patient not being able to freely mix with other patients on the ward for five months.
• Managers failed to ensure patients who received medicines covertly had a care plan in place detailing how staff complete this safely. Patients who received medicines through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) also had no detailed care plan in place instructing staff how to ensure medicines given by this route follows best practice guidance.
• Staff had not consistently followed the Mental Capacity Act when assessing capacity to make specific decisions relating to medicines and the use of an electronic cigarette (vaporiser).
• Staff could not locate all agency staff induction paperwork. We were not assured that this consistently took place. There was a lack of detail within agency staff profiles, particularly around mandatory training, what levels they had completed and when.
• Due to the provider using a number of different care agencies to cover shifts, we were not assured that they had all received reducing restrictive interventions training in line with the providers own policy, and in line with national guidance.
• The service had not had any regular psychology staff in post for at least 12 months despite some individual care plans listing psychological interventions and / or goals.
• The provider used a high volume of agency staff to cover shifts. The majority of these were healthcare assistants. Agency healthcare assistants did not have access to patients’ electronic notes. They had to rely upon other staff inputting information on their behalf.
• Staff did not always follow individual care plans relating to oral health and mouthcare, and cleaning and rotation of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) sites.
• Patients had not consistently received feedback following on from suggestions made or concerns raised during community meetings.

However:

• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment.
• Managers ensured staff had regular supervision and an annual appraisal of their work.
• Staff actively involved patients, families and carers in care decisions when it was possible to do so, and appropriate consent had been sought.
• Staff teams held regular team meetings which were recorded.
• We saw some kind and caring interactions between staff and patients during inspection.
• We spoke with some highly motivated and compassionate staff members.
• We saw the wards had a variety of easy read documents.

Updated 18 August 2017

Updated 25 March 2024