You are here

We are carrying out checks at The Priory Hospital Preston using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 23 November 2017

We rated Priory Hospital Preston as good because we were assured about the safety of patients being cared for in the hospital.

We inspected the safe domain following notifications received by CQC about absent without leave incidents. These had involved patients leaving the hospital through windows and doors. We were assured that the provider had taken appropriate actions to address these issues to avoid recurrence.

Inspection areas



Updated 23 November 2017

We rated safe as good because

  • Staff mitigated risks related to the environment and ward layout by the use of closed circuit cameras, parabolic mirrors and staff allocations.

  • Ligature risks were reviewed regularly and actions were taken where necessary.

  • Patients were being cared for in accordance with same sex accommodation guidance.

  • Clinic rooms were clean and tidy with resuscitation equipment accessible and in good order.

  • Staffing levels were sufficient and could be increased when needed.

  • Medical staff were available when needed.

  • Nursing and medical staff completed risk assessments and these were reviewed and updated regularly.

  • Managers investigated serious incidents thoroughly and we saw that actions were taken as a result.

  • Staff were aware of and followed the Duty of Candour.



Updated 5 February 2016

We rated effective as good because:

  • Patients were assessed patients within 24 hours of admission.
  • Physical health checks were in place for all patients admitted to the hospital.
  • Patients’ care plans and progress were reviewed regularly within multidisciplinary meetings.
  • Clinical staff delivered care and treatment in line with current guidance and monitored their compliance with this.
  • Staff were appropriately skilled to deliver care and there was a range of staff disciplines that contributed to the wards.
  • The hospital used the health of the nation outcome scales (HoNoS) and other tools to measure outcomes for patients.
  • There was a strong programme of assurance and an annual audit calendar was in place.
  • Mandatory training and appraisal uptake for staff was 100%.
  • There were appropriate policies in place covering medical revalidation, staff appraisal and supervision.
  • There were systems in place to ensure adherence with the Mental Health Act, the MHA Code of Practice and the Mental Capacity Act.

Some concerns were raised regarding psychological therapies. However the provider had acknowledged this and was in the process of reviewing the provision and quality of those therapies.



Updated 5 February 2016

We rated caring as good because:

  • There were positive interactions between patients and staff, who provided practical and emotional support to patients during our visit.
  • Feedback from patients about staff, and staff attitudes, were very positive. Patients, their carers and relatives felt staff treated them with respect, that they listened, and were caring and empathetic.
  • Staff gave patients using the service the opportunity to be involved in decisions about their care.
  • Staff facilitated and planned with patients their attendance at the multidisciplinary meetings and involved the patient’s family or carers where this was appropriate
  • Staff spent time talking to patients and their families.

  • The wards held regular patient community meetings, and the meeting minutes demonstrated that the hospital took action in response to issues raised.
  • People who had previously been patients at the hospital took part in walk rounds to assess the quality of the wards.

  • Managers regularly evaluated feedback from patients to improve inpatient care and treatment at the hospital.



Updated 5 February 2016

We rated responsive as good because:

  • Where needed, the hospital had access to psychiatric intensive care beds through an arrangement with a sister hospital in the same Priory Group

  • There was a good system in place in planning for patient discharge from the hospital.
  • The facilities and premises provided patients with a range of rooms available for them to access and external garden areas.
  • There was good access to ward-based activities as well as a range of activities outside of the hospital for patients.
  • There was support for patients’ spiritual and religious needs.
  • Patients had access to hot drinks and snacks whenever they required and there were water machines present on the wards.
  • There was a range of information leaflets available on both wards and these provided patients with information about various medications.
  • There was access to a dietician, and an onsite chef produced food to meet dietary requirements.
  • There was good access to the complaints process and good management of complaints.



Updated 5 February 2016

We rated well-led as good because:

  • Staff were engaged with the vision and values of the provider organisation.
  • Senior managers were well known and had a visible presence at the hospital and in the ward areas.
  • There was an open and transparent culture and staff were being consulted and encouraged to comment about service improvement.
  • Staff stated managers supported them in their role and that the managers at the hospital were visible, accessible and approachable.
  • There were processes in place to manage current and future performance of the hospital.
  • There was a strong programme of assurance and audits in place to monitor the performance at the hospital.
Checks on specific services

Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units


Updated 23 November 2017

See overall summary