• Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Priory Hospital Solihull

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Showell Lane, Meriden, Coventry, West Midlands, CV7 7HZ 07738 885598

Provided and run by:
Partnerships in Care Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 7 December 2018

Woodland View is part of the Priory Group. It is a 31-bedded rehabilitation and recovery service for males requiring a positive environment to stabilise the symptoms of mental illness, and develop positive self-management and independent skills for a successful discharge into the community.

The hospital has a rehabilitation pathway made up of three wards:

  • Elkin – 10 en-suite bedrooms; this ward is led by a medical model with a focus on engagement and individual needs assessments. This is a high dependency rehabilitation ward which is for patients with severe symptoms, co-morbidities and significant risk histories.
  • Arley – 10 en-suite bedrooms; this ward introduces patients to community-facing skills, led by a psychology model offering development of relapse prevention skills and symptom management.
  • Millison – 11 en-suite bedrooms; this ward provides patients with the opportunity to practice independent living skills, with a focus on engagement outside of the hospital, to provide a seamless transition into the community.

Arley and Millison wards are longer term high dependency rehabilitation wards which are for patients with high levels of disability from treatment resistant symptoms and /or co-morbid conditions that require longer inpatient rehabilitation to stabilise.

The hospital was last inspected in April 2017 and was rated good in all domains.

The hospital has a registered manager.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 7 December 2018

We rated Woodland View as good because :

  • The service provided safe care. The ward environments were safe and clean. Staff assessed and managed risk well. They minimised the use of restrictive practices, managed medicines safely and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
  • Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients cared for in a mental health rehabilitation ward and in line with national best practice guidance. The hospital provided a full range of physical healthcare for patients. This included access to a well man clinic within the hospital and access to a range of specialists through the local GP such as a diabetes nurse.
  • The ward teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the wards. Managers ensured that these staff received training to support them in their roles. Staff worked well together as a multi-disciplinary team and with those outside the ward who would have a role in providing aftercare.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively involved patients and families and carers in care decisions.
  • Staff planned and managed discharge well and liaised well with services that would provide aftercare. As a result, discharge was rarely delayed for other than a clinical reason.
  • Staff provided a range of activities for patients including paid work, volunteering and a full range of activities linked to the local community.
  • The service worked to a structured pathway of mental health rehabilitation. It was well led and the governance processes ensured that ward procedures ran smoothly.

However:

  • The hospital did not routinely record that supervision of staff had taken place so it would not be possible for managers to ensure all staff had received the correct level of supervision for their roles. A system had been put in place but this was not fully embedded as routine practice.
  • Staff did not always record general observations as they happened on Elkin Ward which could potentially put patients at risk although we saw no evidence that this had been the case.
  • The hospital did not always ensure scrutiny checklists for Mental Health Act paperwork were completed in a timely manner to ensure errors had been identified and could be corrected.
  • Staff counted cutlery in and out at mealtimes but this was not individually risk assessed for patients.