The Care Quality Commission
  • Residential substance misuse service

Priory Wellbeing Centre Southampton

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Mansbridge Road, West End, Southampton, Hampshire, SO18 3HW (023) 8071 3000

Provided and run by:
The Manor Clinic Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Priory Wellbeing Centre Southampton on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Priory Wellbeing Centre Southampton, you can give feedback on this service.

06 December 2018

During a routine inspection

We rated The Manor Clinic as Good because:

  • Staff completed comprehensive assessments prior to admission and completed care plans with clients on the first day in the service. Clients felt involved in their care and treatment.
  • Staff felt supported and respected. Staff were passionate about the service that was delivered. Morale amongst staff was good, sickness and turnover of staff was low and the team worked well together.
  • Staff worked with National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Staff supported clients in line with “Drug misuse and dependence: UK guidelines on clinical management (2017)”.
  • The service had a range of staff to support clients’ recovery. Staff were skilled to carry out their roles. All staff received a comprehensive induction.
  • The service offered weekly family therapy which was free of charge and life-long. Therapists also provided a free of charge life-long after care service for clients.
  • The service had made adjustments for clients with disabilities. There were adjustments to two of the bedrooms and wheelchair accessible ramps throughout the ground floor. The service had developed easy read documents and large print documents for clients with visual impairment.

However:

  • Staff had not ensured that sufficient information regarding clients’ medical history and the current medicine prescription was available before treatment started.
  • The provider had not considered the confidentiality and safety of clients from ‘other patients’ attending the service as an outpatient.
  • Staff had not considered the safety of female clients sleeping in areas where there were male clients.
  • Staff did not document clear rationale for risk ratings in clients’ risk assessments.
  • Staff did not report disclosures of historical abuse to the local authority safeguarding team.
  • Clients’ records were kept in paper format and electronic format and the current system was confusing and disorganised.

6 March 2014

During a routine inspection

At the time of our visit there were eight people using the service. We spoke with seven of them, and observed (with people's agreement) a group therapy session. All the people we spoke with were satisfied with the care and treatment provided. One said, 'It's excellent. You can't fault the treatment'. Another told us they found the treatment 'invaluable'. People told us they felt safe and received effective and responsive care and treatment.

Staff told us the service was well managed and focussed on providing effective treatments. Staff had a very good level of knowledge regarding the people using the service, the aims of the service and current practice in recovery services. We saw that staff were friendly and caring, aware of people's needs and preferences, and responsive to them.

We found evidence people consented to their treatment, information was shared appropriately and capacity issues were taken into account. Records examined were well kept and up to date. The environment was suitable for purpose. Treatment options were person-centred and followed best practice clinical guidance. Aspects of the treatment programme we saw were conducted in an open, empowering and sensitive manner. People were protected against risks associated with the management of medicines. There was an effective complaints procedure. The provider carried out the necessary checks before staff started work.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We checked our records and obtained information from the registered manager for this desk based follow up review. We found that the service was aware of the reasons to notify us of significant events at the service. This included notifying us of changes to the Nominated Individual. Changes required were made following the last inspection in January 2013. This meant that we have been formally informed of persons responsible for the quality of the service to people accommodated at the Manor Clinic.

22, 24 January 2013

During a routine inspection

People were provided with a structured service in the form of therapeutic group work and individual support. They found the service supportive and said that members of staff were available to help them when they needed it. There were various rules and expectations of people during their stay and this had been put in place to aid their recovery. People were provided with the information as part of the admission process. However full information of the structure of the service and the agreement they would sign was not available for people before they arrived. People said they felt safe at the service and staff were aware of action to take if they had any concerns about people's well being. However we found that documentation did not demonstrate that adequate steps had been taken to assess people's needs before admission.

We found a sufficient range of staff were available to meet people's needs. They told us they received the support they needed and we found that staffing levels were regularly reviewed. There was a range of systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and adjustments were made in light of service reviews. This included assessing feedback from people who had used the service. The service had recently identified a need to monitor incidents. However we found that there had been a failure to notify the Commission of significant changes or adverse events that may affect the welfare of people who use the service.