• Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Priory Hospital Marlow

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

309 Cressex Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 4QF (01494) 476500

Provided and run by:
Priory Healthcare Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 17 December 2021

Priory Hospital Marlow is an independent hospital and is part of the Priory Healthcare group. It was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2020 but opened to patients in April 2021. This was its first inspection.

The hospital has one ward, Cressex ward, with 14 individual bedrooms, providing a specialist eating disorder inpatient service for male and female adults aged 18 years and over.

The hospital is registered with the CQC to provide the following regulated activities:

  • Treatment of disease, disorder or injury
  • Assessment or medical treatment for people detained under the Mental Health Act 1983

At the time of our inspection the hospital had eight patients, all female, one of whom was detained under the Mental Health Act and the other seven were in hospital informally with their consent.

There was a registered manager in post.

What people who use the service say

Patients said that hospital staff were kind and caring, and that they treated them with respect. They said staff went the extra mile for them, were supportive and were interested in them as individuals. Patients told us they felt safe on the ward. The families and carers of patients also spoke positively about the hospital and its staff. They praised and valued the support they received from staff. They described the hospital as a “lifeline”.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 17 December 2021

Priory Hospital Marlow is an independent hospital that is part of the Priory Healthcare group. It is a specialist inpatient eating disorder service for a maximum of 14 male and female adults. It opened in April 2021 and this was its first inspection.

We rated it as good because:

  • We observed a strong culture of person-centred care being delivered at the hospital, and saw examples of staff exceeding patients’ expectations with the care they delivered. Staff treated patients with exceptional compassion and kindness, and respected their privacy and dignity. Patients were active partners in their care and were also involved in the governance processes at the hospital.
  • The service proactively supported families and carers, who spoke with glowing gratitude about the support the staff gave them.
  • The service provided safe care. The ward environment was safe, clean, well-maintained and welcoming. 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 and in line with national guidance about best practice. Staff engaged in clinical audits to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
  • The ward team included the full range of specialists required to meet patients’ needs. Managers ensured that staff received training, including specialist eating disorder training, and supervision. The ward staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team.
  • Staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
  • The service was well led. A robust audit programme and governance structure was in place. Managers provided a strong and visible presence within the service. Staff felt respected, supported and valued, and spoke highly of the leadership.

However:

  • There were vacancies for both nursing and support staff, and there were some shifts when staffing levels were below target.
  • Patients’ care plans were not sufficiently personalised and did not reflect the individual care given to the patient or record the extent to which patients were involved in their own care planning.
  • Not all patient records were complete. There were omissions in clinical entries on the electronic record system and in some observation records. Staff corrected these omissions on the day of inspection.