We rated The Priory Hospital Dewsbury as good because,

• The hospital environment was clean and well maintained. Staff undertook environmental risk assessments to mitigate and manage risks. All patients had comprehensive risk assessments and the hospital used a range of recognised tools. The hospital had robust medication management and regular audits to ensure any gaps were being identified and continuously improved. Staff understood their responsibilities under safeguarding and made appropriate notifications to the local safeguarding authority as well as statutory notifications to the Care Quality Commission.
• All patients had comprehensive, person centred and holistic care plans. There was evidence of collaboration with patients and carers within the documentation. Patients had access to a full range of multi-disciplinary staff including a psychologist, psychiatrist, registered mental health nurses, occupational therapist, health care assistants and a newly appointed registered general nurse. Multi-disciplinary meetings were detailed and covered all aspects of the patients care including, risk, medication and discharge plans. Staff had a good working knowledge of the Mental Health Act. They had support from a Mental Health Act administrator who was also responsible for ensuring all documentation was correct and up to date.
• We received overwhelmingly positive feedback from carers about the good care received by their family members. They highlighted staff were caring, kind and compassionate when working with patients. We observed staff treating patients with dignity, empathy and kindness. Patients were able to feedback on the service during their weekly community meetings, they could highlight concerns, issues or areas they would like to see improvements.
• The hospital successfully discharged patients on both Hartley ward and Jubilee ward in the last 12 months. The hospital responded to all complaints in a timely manner, apologised in all instances as well as providing good will gestures as part of the outcome. The hospital provided had a range of facilities which promoted the patients recovery, they included a gym, multi-sensory room and a skills kitchen.
• Robust governance systems were in place to measure the effectiveness of the service using key performance indicators. Regular governance meetings were held locally at the service and outcomes were communicated at regional and national governance meetings. The senior staff and registered manager were aware of the key risks that affected the hospital and understood what plans were in place to manage it. There were audits in place to identify gaps within systems. The hospital had action plans aligned to all the audits. Staff could submit to the risk register after discussing the risk with the registered manager. Staff morale was positive and they felt as though they could approach senior staff regarding issues or concerns. They did not feel at risk of victimisation and felt the hospital would support them wherever possible.

However,

• We found staff on Hartley ward had left a sheath on the auricular thermometer after it has been used.
• Physical health information was not always stored within the physical health template. We found physical health information stored within contemporaneous notes, care plans and risk assessments, This meant physical health information was not always easily found.
• Care plans were not always future orientated, and did not discuss plans for discharge.
• Although psychology support was available one to one, the hospital did not have any therapeutic groups to offer patients.
• The providers central electronic information system did not always accurately reflect compliance figures for supervision. Although staff were receiving regular monthly supervision the providers system identified a compliance rate of only 60%.