Priory Hospital Lincolnshire

Updated 15 March 2019

The Priory Healthcare Group own Priory Hospital Lincolnshire. It is a low secure, long stay rehabilitation hospital for adult males with complex mental health issues and personality disorders. Located in Gainsborough Lincolnshire it provides 28 beds to support those who are detained under the Mental Health Act.

The hospital has two wards:

Lancaster ward a 14-bedded ward for males who need stabilisation and support to decrease their levels of challenging behaviour.

Scampton ward a 14-bedded ward providing continuing care with a focus on rehabilitation, community reintegration and preparation for the person to move to further along the care pathway, or to community living. At the time of inspection Priory Hospital Lincolnshire had 20 patients, all detained under the Mental Health Act. The registered manager is Palmer Chinosengwa.

Priory Hospital Lincolnshire provides the following regulated activities:

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

We last inspected Priory Hospital Lincolnshire on 11 October 2016, at that time it was known as Meadow View, and we rated it as good overall.

Updated 15 March 2019

We rated Priory Hospital Lincolnshire as good because:

• Patients had access to evidence based, high quality psychological therapy, with once or twice weekly one to one sessions, group therapy and drop in sessions to supplement the structured therapy program. The range of activities available to patients, was extensive, and of high quality. Staff designed activities to promote recovery.
• Leaders were strong, consistent, and well respected by the staff and patients we spoke with. We saw evidence that managers were implementing the information and action plans, that they had shared with us through the provider engagement meetings, into the culture and practice at the hospital. Staff commented positively about how the providers vision and values were embedded into practice at the hospital. The vision and values were based on promoting a culture of family, support for each other, belonging and ownership.
• There were robust systems in place for reporting and recording incidents. There were systems and procedures to ensure that wards were safe and clean. Managers were carrying out regular environmental audits and acting on the findings when needed. The provider had implemented a successful recruitment drive for permanent staff, and improved staff engagement had reduced the number of staff leavers. The service adhered to the requirements of the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act.
• Staff undertook risk assessments of patients upon admission. Staff updated risk assessments during patient review meetings or following an incident. Staff completed comprehensive assessments of patients upon admission. Staff used the information gathered during the assessment to create holistic and personalised care plans. Patients were involved in, and took part in the planning of their care. We reviewed twelve patient care records which showed that staff discussed care plans with patients and recorded their views.
• The hospital was clean, well maintained and safe. All patients had their own en-suite bedrooms with patient call alarms. There was adequate space for a variety of activities to be happening at the same time. There were enough skilled staff to meet patients’ needs and give all the necessary clinical and physical interventions needed. Clinics were clean tidy and well managed. Staff stored medication in locked cupboards within the clinic room. We checked 14 medication records for patients, staff had completed all records correctly.

However:

• The systems for recording and capturing supervision conversations were not clear or robust. Staff doubted the accuracy of the supervision data provided. Supervision records were not readily available and staff appeared to have lost some records. Although, prior to inspection, the registered manager had identified this as a problem and had started to put in place systems to ensure that staff recorded and stored supervision records appropriately.
• One patient who had complained of blurred vision, had been waiting several months for staff to arrange an optician’s appointment for him. Staff explained the reasons for the delay and before the inspection finished, staff had made the patient an opticians appointment at the hospital.
• Lancaster wards’ compliance with mandatory training was significantly lower than Scampton ward. We did not consider this a breach, because the providers overall training compliance was reasonable at 92%, however, the provider should address this discrepancy.
• Staff training in Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act was below the providers expected target.

Updated 29 November 2016

Meadow View provides services for up  to 28 patients over two wards.