The Priory Hospital Market Weighton

Updated 18 July 2025

Date of assessment: Tuesday 01 to Wednesday 30 April 2025. The Priory Hospital Market Weighton provided 2 wards. Market Weighton, the main ward, provided 11 beds and The Wicstun, provided bespoke therapeutic placements for two people. This assessment looked at long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults which we rated as good. In our assessment we found the service demonstrated improvements that have been made. However, governance processes did not always operate effectively.

Updated 14 February 2025

Date of assessment Tuesday 01 to Wednesday 30 April 2025

Burnside Care Limited provides the Priory Hospital Market Weighton which is a long stay or rehabilitation mental health ward for working age adults. At the time of the assessment, the service provided treatment and care for individuals detained under the Mental Health Act. The hospital had been divided into 2 wards since the last inspection. Market Weighton, the main ward, provided 11 beds. The new ward, The Wicstun, provided bespoke therapeutic placements for two people, each living in their own single occupancy, self-contained apartments named, Wicstun Way and Wicstun Wold. At the time of our assessment, the service had 10 people admitted to the main ward and 1 person admitted to Wicstun Wold.

We rated the service as good. The service had made improvements to ensure that people had access to the required specialists and therapies, risk assessment and management plans were robust and there were regular reviews of goal orientated care plans. The provider had made improvements to their facilities to ensure the treatment, privacy and dignity of people’s individual needs were met. However, we found the service lacked some oversight or review of the effectiveness of some of the systems, processes, and procedures in place. We identified that there were gaps in processes that could lead to physical health concerns being overlooked. The improvements regarding the safety of the facilities and environment for both patients and staff still lacked a clear process. The service could not show how they evaluated or met specific standards in terms of the effectiveness of the environment or interventions implemented.

During this assessment we identified a breach of regulation 17 for good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Updated 12 October 2015

The building was clean, well maintained and comfortably furnished. Systems were in place to monitor the safety of patients, staff and the environment. Medication was managed safely.

Staffing levels were maintained at a level that ensured patients were safe and received the treatment they needed. Staff were recruited following checks of their professional status and to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff understood their responsibilities in reporting any safeguarding. Staff had completed their mandatory training this meant they had the skills to provide a safe and effective service.

Care records had clear plans and guidance for staff on how to support patients who used the service. These records were reviewed and updated regularly.

There were good systems in place to support adherence to the Mental Health Act and MHA Code of Practice. The records we saw relating to the Act were generally well kept. We saw that the provider had systems in place to assess and record patients’ mental capacity to make decisions and develop care plans for any needs.

We observed positive interactions between staff and patients. Patients were treated with compassion and empathy. Patients’ were involved in planning their care.

Information on advocacy, the complaints process and Mental Health Act (MHA) rights was available to read on noticeboards.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal. Clinical and non-clinical staff could access further training to ensure they had the skills needed to carry out their role.

Staff were confident in raising concerns about practise and risks to patients. They told us that if they raised any issues with the director they felt listened to and confident action would be taken.

They carried out internal audits and there was a corporate team working on quality and improvement and they visited the hospital every three months.