The Care Quality Commission
  • Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Barnt Green

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Warren Lane, Lickey, Birmingham, West Midlands, B45 8ER

Provided and run by:
Priory Healthcare Limited

All Inspections

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

We visited Barnt Green mental health hospital on 25 February 2026. Barnt Green is a 33 bedded independent hospital in Lickey Hills, Birmingham, providing care and treatment to people who are experiencing mental illness. We assessed the service to review the progress made against the warning notices that were served on the provider following the inspection in May 27 and 28 May 2025. We found that the service had made improvements and had addressed the concerns in the warning notices.

Barnt Green mental health hospital was registered with CQC in August 2020 to deliver the regulated activities: Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The service had a Registered Manager.

We visited the following wards as part of the assessment:

  • Beacon ward is a 10 bedded mixed gender private acute mental health ward for adults of working age.
  • Jubilee is a 13 bedded mixed gender NHS acute mental health ward for adults of working age.
  • Clent ward is a 10 bedded female NHS psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) for adults of working age.

Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary

Mental Capacity Act

Staff received and kept up to date with training on the Mental Capacity Act, this was mandatory for staff, with training compliance at 95%. In addition, staff have completed Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards with compliance at 100%.

The provider had relevant and up-to-date policies and procedures that reflected relevant legislation.

The provider has flash cards with basic principles of the Mental Capacity Act available on all wards as prompts for staff.

Staff completed an assessment of each patient’s capacity to consent to admission and treatment on admission. Further assessments took place during reviews by the multidisciplinary team if required.

At the time of our assessment, no patients had advanced decisions in place.

During an assessment of the hospital overall

We inspected the key questions of Safe and Well-Led in February 2026. At our previous assessment in May 2025, we rated this key question requires improvement. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment. The service has made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulation. The provider now has systems and processes in place to ensure staff can safely support patients to seclusion. The ward environments on Jubilee and Clent wards are now clean and well maintained. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

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

Priory Barnt Green is a 33 bedded independent hospital in Lickey Hills, Birmingham, providing care and treatment to people who are experiencing mental health issues. The hospital is run by Priory Healthcare. The service was registered with the Care Quality Commission in August 2020.

The hospital comprises of 3 wards:

  • Beacon ward is a 10 bedded mixed gender private acute mental health ward for adults of working age.
  • Jubilee is a 13 bedded mixed gender NHS acute mental health ward for adults of working age.
  • Clent ward is a 10 bedded female NHS psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) mental health ward for adults of working age.

We carried out a site visit to the service on 27 and 28 May 2025, followed by offsite activities. The inspection team consisted of 3 CQC inspectors and 1 specialist advisor. On the day of our onsite assessment, there were 22 patients across the service, 11 on Jubilee ward, 7 on Clent ward and 4 on Beacon Ward. The hospital provides care to both informal patients and those detained under the Mental Health Act.

The service was previously rated requires improvement overall. Following this inspection, the rating has stayed the same. We inspected all quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions to achieve this rating. The service was previously rated as requires improvement in the key questions effective and well-led. The rating for effective has changed to good, and the rating for well-led has remained the same. The service was previously rated as good for the key question safe, however the rating for this key question has changed to requires improvement following this assessment. The provider has remained in breach of regulation in relation to good governance.

The provider was in breach of 2 regulations in relation to Safe Care and Treatment and Good Governance. We identified issues around Infection, prevention and control (IPC). Staff did not always ensure that the ward environment on Jubilee and Clent ward was clean and well-maintained. We observed visibly unclean areas in the communal areas of Jubilee and Clent ward. We identified that the provider's governance processes were not always effective. The provider did not have robust systems and processes in place to safely support Jubilee patients to seclusion.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance

Mental Health Act

Most patients were detained for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Staff stored copies of patients detention papers and associated records correctly and staff could access them when needed. At the last inspection, the provider had a breach in Good Governance as the provider had failed to ensure staff had access to Mental Health Act paperwork and did not identify in a timely manner that patients' detention was about to lapse. At this inspection, patient records demonstrated that the service had made improvements. There was now an alert system in place to notify staff when patients' detention was about to lapse.

Patients had access to an Independent Mental Health Advocate. Posters were displayed on noticeboards on the wards with contact details to reach this service.

Staff ensured patients could take section 17 leave (permission to leave the hospital) when this was agreed by the multidisciplinary team. Section 17 leave was not always granted dependent on patient risk; this was discussed with patients.

Staff explained to each patient their rights under the Mental Health Act. Rights were repeated to patients as required and this was recorded in patient records. Patients were provided with leaflets, and these were available in a different formats or languages if required. Patients told us they were informed of their rights. However, 1 patient told us this was difficult to understand as there was a lot of information.

Staff had access to support and advice on implementing the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. At the time of our assessment, the provider did not have onsite Mental Health Act administration support. The provider could access Mental Health Act administration support remotely.

Staff received and kept up to date with training on the Mental Health Act, this was mandatory for staff. Compliance was at 100% across all 3 wards.

The service had relevant and up-to-date policies and procedures that reflected all relevant legislation and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. For example, the provider had a policy on "The Mental Health Act and Administration of Medication by Nurses."

Most staff knew who to approach for further support. Some staff could name the Mental Health Act administrator. For those who could not name the administrator, they stated they would approach ward level management. Some staff could not describe the basic principles of the Act.

Mental Capacity Act

Staff received and kept up to date with training on the Mental Capacity Act, this was mandatory for staff. Compliance was at 100% across all 3 wards.

The service had relevant and up-to-date policies and procedures that reflected relevant legislation.

Staff completed an assessment of each patient's capacity to consent to admission and treatment on admission. Further assessments took place during reviews by the multidisciplinary team if required.

At the time of our assessment, no patients had advanced decisions in place. Managers told us this would be documented in care records.

During an assessment of the hospital overall

Priory Barnt Green is a 33 bedded independent hospital in Lickey Hills, Birmingham, providing care and treatment to people who are experiencing mental health issues. The hospital is run by Priory Healthcare. The service was registered with the Care Quality Commission in August 2020.

The hospital comprises of 3 wards:

  • Beacon ward is a 10 bedded mixed gender private acute mental health ward for adults of working age.
  • Jubilee is a 13 bedded mixed gender NHS acute mental health ward for adults of working age.
  • Clent ward is a 10 bedded female NHS psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) mental health ward for adults of working age.

We carried out a site visit to the service on 27 and 28 May 2025, followed by offsite activities. The inspection team consisted of 3 CQC inspectors and 1 specialist advisor. On the day of our onsite assessment, there were 22 patients across the service, 11 on Jubilee ward, 7 on Clent ward and 4 on Beacon Ward. The hospital provides care to both informal patients and those detained under the Mental Health Act.

The service was previously rated requires improvement overall. Following this inspection, the rating has stayed the same. We inspected all quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions to achieve this rating. The service was previously rated as requires improvement in the key questions effective and well-led. The rating for effective has changed to good, and the rating for well-led has remained the same. The service was previously rated as good for the key question safe, however the rating for this key question has changed to requires improvement following this assessment. The provider has remained in breach of regulation in relation to good governance.

The provider was in breach of 2 regulations in relation to Safe Care and Treatment and Good Governance. We identified issues around Infection, prevention and control (IPC). Staff did not always ensure that the ward environment on Jubilee and Clent ward was clean and well-maintained. We observed visibly unclean areas in the communal areas of Jubilee and Clent ward. We identified that the provider's governance processes were not always effective. The provider did not have robust systems and processes in place to safely support Jubilee patients to seclusion.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

25 October 2022 and 26 October 2022

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location improved. We rated it as requires improvement because:

  • The provider had failed to ensure that staff had access to Mental Health Act detention paperwork and failed to identify that 2 patients’ detention had lapsed.
  • Staff did not adequately monitor the physical health of all patients after they had been banging their heads.
  • Staff had not completed discharge plans for all patients on both Jubilee and Beacon wards.
  • Patients told us, and care records confirmed, that they were not involved in writing their care plans on Jubilee ward.
  • The service was not always well led, and some governance processes did not always ensure that the ward procedures ran smoothly.

However:

  • The service had made improvements since reopening and is not in special measures.
  • The service provided safe care and there was a range of activities for patients to engage in. The ward environments were safe and clean and well-furnished. There was positive feedback about the food and the chef.
  • The wards had enough nurses and doctors who were caring. 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 audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
  • 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, supervision and appraisal. There was positive feedback from staff about induction, leadership and support.
  • The ward staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary 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.
  • The service managed beds well so that a bed was always available locally to a person who would benefit from admission and patients were discharged promptly once their condition warranted this.

28 June and 30 June 2021

During a routine inspection

Priory Barnt Green is an independent mental health hospital provided by the Priory Group. The hospital had one ward open at the time of our inspection. Bittell ward was a ten bed Psychiatric Intensive Care unit for female patients aged 18 and over. The hospital planned to open an acute mental health ward and a private ward but could not do this until they had recruited staff. The provider had submitted an application to increase the number of wards as this had been limited at the time of registration.

We carried out an inspection of the hospital on 28 and 20 June 2021. Following the inspection, we informed the provider of our immediate serious concerns and warned them of possible urgent enforcement action. The provider was told to submit two action plans. The first within three hours that described how it was going to immediately address CQC concerns. The second within two working days with more information about how it would continue to address those concerns. After submitting the first action plan the provider decided to close the hospital for a period of time as they did not feel they could keep patients safe if they stayed open. The provider then submitted their second action plan and informed us of further patient safety incidents that had taken place. We decided to use our powers under Section 31 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to take immediate enforcement action. We imposed additional conditions on the provider’s registration in the form of a Notice of Decision. The conditions were to restrict the provider from admitting any new patients to Priory Barnt Green without the prior written agreement of the Care Quality Commission and to ensure they updated us daily about the discharge of existing patients.

The hospital communicated with families after we had completed our inspection that they had decided to close the hospital.

This was the first time we rated this service. We rated it as inadequate because:

  • The service did not have a good track record on safety. Staff did not always keep patients safe from avoidable harm. Patients had been able to harm themselves when staff should have been keeping them safe.
  • The service did not have enough nursing staff and relied on agency staff. There were occasions where there were not enough nurses on shift. Patients and staff had concerns about the way agency staff treated patients and worked. Agency staff did not have access to the clinical records system, this meant it was hard for them to access information
  • Not all areas of the seclusion room where patients were placed for safety were visible to staff.
  • Not all staff had the right experience or skills for their roles. Most support staff had not worked in a mental health setting previously. Staff turnover and performance issues were high. Staff did not receive regular supervision and a number of staff had not received training to keep themselves and patients safe in a timely way. Staff assessed risks to patients but did not always manage risks to patients well. Staff sometimes struggled to manage patients’ challenging behaviour.
  • There was not a full range of treatment and care plans for patients based on national guidance and best practice. Patients did not have access to enough individualised activity or psychological interventions.
  • Staff did not always complete and record physical health observations of patients. The physical health of patients was not monitored regularly. Physical observations were not always completed or recorded after incidents of patients receiving rapid tranquillisation or patients head banging.
  • Staff did not report all incidents and there had been delays in reporting, reviewing and investigating incidents. The service did not always manage incidents well and did not consistently learn from incidents to stop them reoccurring.
  • Governance processes did not operate well, and this affected how the service managed risk and engaged with staff. The service had not always notified the CQC of incidents that they were required to. Record keeping was not consistent and there were gaps in documentation, including handover records, and Mental Health Act paperwork where information was missing or incorrect. Audits were not effective and staff meetings did not take place regularly.
  • Not all patients felt staff always treated them kindly or respected their privacy and dignity. Not all patients felt all staff supported them with their care. Patients did not have discharge plans and did not have regular one to one sessions with their named nurse. The service had not ensured that patients could access independent advocates. Carers did not feel well informed.

The Chief Inspector of Hospitals is placing the service into special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate overall or for any key question or core service, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. The service will be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement, we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to vary the provider’s registration to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.