Archived: The Priory Hospital Dewsbury

Updated 25 April 2016

The Priory Hospital in Dewsbury is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to carry out the following regulated activities:

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

The hospital is made up of two long stay/rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults wards:

• Hartley – 20 beds
• Jubilee – 12 beds

The Priory Hospital in Dewsbury provides care and support for men with long-term mental health problems; some patients have a learning disability. The hospital provides care to patients who are detained under the Mental Health Act, but also patients who are at the hospital on an informal basis.

The CQC inspected The Priory Hospital Dewsbury in November 2013. We found the hospital was not compliant with our previous regulations with regard to the management of medicines. At this inspection, we found there were different issues relating to medicines, which meant the hospital was not meeting this regulation.

The last Mental Health Act review was on 21 July 2015, the reviewer made recommendations and The Priory Hospital Dewsbury had made the required improvements.

The accountable officer for the service is Margaret Doyle. Margaret Doyle was not the accountable officer at the time of the inspection.

Updated 25 April 2016

We rated The Priory Hospital Dewsbury as requires improvement because:

• We found poor practice in relation to the management of medicines. Staff had not recorded the medication stock correctly and some medicines that were in stock were out of date. Medication records were not always accurate; which meant that patients did not always have their medication as prescribed. Staff did not always risk assess patients who self- administered their medications nor did they monitor patients on anti-psychotics for side effects. There was no effective system for reporting medication errors.
• New systems and processes did not highlight concerns with regard to medication errors.
• Ligature cutters were not easily accessible to all members of staff. The provider had not accurately assessed the ligature risks. The provider had not mitigated all ligature risks.
• Inspectors identified safeguarding incidents during our inspection. Patients had not felt comfortable disclosing these to staff.
• Staff had not updated risk assessments after incidents occurred.
• Patients were not always involved with risk assessments.
• Staff did not always update patient care plans to reflect decisions made at multi-disciplinary team meetings.
• Physical health checks were not all carried out as described in patients care plans.
• Staff did not always treat patients with kindness. We saw two examples of staff treating patients disrespectfully.
• Seniors managers did not always identify areas for improvement.

However:

• Systems were in place for reporting and monitoring incidents. Staff debriefs usually occurred immediately after an incident. Incidents were scrutinised by the providers safeguarding lead.
• Staff had the qualifications and skills they needed to carry out their roles effectively.
• There were a range of professionals to care for patients.
• Staff informed patients of their rights at the time of initial detention, which continued throughout their detention.
• Community meetings took place daily.
• Patients knew how to complain and the provider dealt with complaints in line with their policy.
• Patients had regular leave from the hospital.
• Activities were meaningful and available to most people wishing to attend.
• Staff took part in a listening event to enable them to say how they would improve the service.
• Senior managers regularly visited the service.

Updated 25 April 2016