We rated Priory Wellbeing Centre as good because:

• The care environment was clean and well maintained. Staff carried out environmental assessments routinely to ensure the safety of the environment. Staff had access to panic alarms in every room.
• The service had enough staff with the right skills to meet the needs of patients. Staff were trained and qualified to carry out their roles. Managers managed staff performance and ensured that staff received regular supervision and their annual appraisals.
• Staff carried out mental health assessments of patients in timely manner following receipt of referrals. Staff assessed and reviewed patients’ risks regularly, including assessing the safeguarding risks of children and vulnerable adults.
• Staff offered a range of psychological therapies in line with the relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Staff used a range of evidence-based assessment tools and outcome measures to support their practice. Patients received therapies tailored to their individual’s needs, Patients were fully involved in choices regarding their care and treatment. Patients told us that staff treated them as individuals.
• Staff worked well with both internal and external organisations to provide good handovers of care and treatment for patients. The service had streamlined its processes since our last inspection, and this had improved the transfer of patients between services.
• The service offered patients appointments quickly following referral, and did not have a waiting list. Patients told us they felt supported and the service offered a flexible approach to accessing treatment. The facilities met the needs of people who used the service and staff accessed interpreting and sign language support if required.
• Staff learned from incidents and complaints within the service. The service carried out thorough investigations of incidents and complaints relating to the service. Patients gave feedback on the service they received.
• Staff spoke highly of their working and their colleagues. Staff told us they felt supported in their role. The service manager was visible and accessible.
• Staff held events with partner agencies and the public in the Midlands area to tackle myths and stigma around mental illness. The service was committed to working with the community and front line staff to raise awareness offer training, direct support and signposting.

However:

• In six of the eight records we reviewed, staff did not always provide sufficient detail of the management of each risk identified or the actions they took.
• The information recorded at initial assessment varied between clinicians.

We rated the Priory Wellbeing service as good because:

• The environment at Priory Wellbeing Birmingham was clean and well maintained. The service undertook regular environmental audits and completed environmental safety checks. A ligature audit was in place and rooms had panic alarms installed. Patients reported they felt safe at the service.
• The service was sufficiently staffed to meet the needs of patients. Staff compliance with mandatory training was high at 94% and staff sickness levels and turnover rates were low. Staff and patients reported they could access a psychiatrist when needed.
• Staff assessed and reviewed patients’ risk regularly. Staff developed risk management plans in conjunction with patients and liaised with others involved in their care to ensure their wellbeing. Staff attended safeguarding training and were aware of how to make a safeguarding referral.
• Staff provided access to a range of psychological therapies accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Staff used validated screening tools and outcome measures to monitor patients progress towards treatment goals. Staff were suitably skilled and qualified to carry out their role and received clinical supervision.
• Staff worked closely with each other and external organisations to provide care and treatment for patients. Staff demonstrated care that was supportive and promoted the patients’ dignity. Patients felt involved in their care and reported staff were warm and kind.
• The service did not have a waiting list and patients reported good access to appointments at times to suit their needs. The facilities met the needs of people who used the service and staff accessed interpreting and sign language support if required. The service investigated and responded to any complaints made by patients about the care and treatment received.
• Staff morale was high and staff reported that they loved working at the service. Staff felt supported in their role and reported the registered manager was visible and available when needed.

However:

• The service did not have procedures in place for monitoring physical health equipment or ensuring it was calibrated in line with manufacturer’s recommendations. The service had not conducted portable appliance testing of electrical equipment as required. This was brought to the attention of the registered manager at the time of inspection and plans were in place to resolve these issues.