The Priory Hospital Hemel Hempstead

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Staff knew who the senior leaders were and told us the senior leaders were visible. Staff demonstrated the vision and values for the service. There were policies, procedures and processes in place to oversee good governance and management of the service, including mechanisms for learning lessons from safety incidents and complaints, processes for ensuring staff received mandatory training, appraisals and supervision.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture.

Senior leaders had communicated the provider's vision and values to the frontline staff in this service. Staff knew and understood the provider's vision and values and they were clear about the aims of their service.

Staff described a positive culture within their own team and across the wider service. They were proud of their work.

The service set out a clear patient pathway and philosophy for their care and treatment which staff demonstrated.

The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and supported and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. They had the skills, knowledge and experience to lead effectively.

Staff and leaders were clear, and they understood their roles, responsibilities and accountabilities. Leadership training was available for nurses.

Staff spoke positively about local and senior leadership. Staff felt they were approachable, accessible and supportive. Staff said that senior leaders were visible on the wards.

The service aimed to create a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff said they knew how to raise a concern and would feel comfortable to do so. They were aware of the service’s whistleblowing policy and the freedom to speak up guardian.

Managers and staff had access to feedback from patients, carers and staff and used it to make improvements. Patients had opportunities to give feedback on the service. We saw examples of these within patient community meeting minutes and surveys.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The service had an Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion policy and colleague charter in place. Staff had completed mandatory diversity and inclusion training. At the time of the assessment, 98% of staff had received this training.

The service used surveys to gather feedback from staff on their commitment to equality and diversity in the workplace. Most staff that responded to the most recent survey (April 2025) were satisfied with efforts to improve equality, diversity and inclusion.

There were a range of equality and diversity networks within the service for example; LGBTQ+, REACH (Race, Equality and Cultural Heritage) Men's group, Women's group, neurodiversity and Disability and Difference. They celebrated PRIDE month and Black History month.

The Provider had initiated a task-force to help implement the Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework (PCREF).

Some staff we spoke with told us they had been supported to work flexibly due to their personal circumstances.

However, whilst there were mechanisms in place to protect staff from discrimination in the workplace, (for example, the equality diversity and inclusion policy, anti-harassment and bullying policy and freedom to speak up guardians) these were not always fully effective. Staff did not feel they were as well supported as they could be to report incidences of verbal racial abuse they had experienced or witnessed by patients. Staff knew how to raise these concerns but there was a perceived culture that action would not be taken as these behaviours were considered to be because the patient was unwell.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

We reviewed examples of governance and staff meeting minutes. There was a clear framework of what must be discussed at staff and team meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared.

There was an audit programme in place including essential topics such as, care planning and risk assessment; observation and engagement; physical health and restrictive practice.

Staff had implemented actions from reviews of incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts at the service level. We could see actions and lessons learnt from the incidents and safeguarding logs we reviewed as part of the assessment.

Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams, both within the service and wider provider organisation, to meet the needs of the patients.

Managers maintained and had access to the risk register. Staff at ward level could access this and escalate concerns when required.

The service had plans in place for emergencies including major incident contingency plans.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. The information technology infrastructure, generally worked well and helped to improve the quality of care. However, staff told us some computer systems and internet connectivity could sometimes be slow.

Team managers had access to information to support them with their management role. They reviewed clinical governance data that provided essential information on the performance of the service and had effective systems to help monitor the care given through regular governance meetings.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Patient records were stored securely.

The service understood their duty to work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

Leaders engaged with external partners such as commissioners, locality teams and care co-ordinators. Staff maintained relationships with the local authority. Managers said they had good working relationships with these services.

Staff worked with partners to help patients access and move into the community when ready to do so. They visited placements with patients to check their suitability.

They encouraged patients to access local organisations for social engagement for example, community cafes, sporting activities and cultural trips such as museums.

The service encouraged continuous learning, innovation and improvement.

Staff were given the time and support to consider opportunities for improvements and innovation and this led to changes. The service had a Quality Improvement lead. We saw examples of quality improvement initiatives including the development of a carer’s newsletter to help keep carers and family up to date, especially for those that may not be able to visit regularly. One patient had family living in Australia. Protected mealtimes, to maximise quality time with staff and patients in a more relaxing and mindful manner. There was also an additional healthcare assistant role to support occupational therapists provide meaningful activities.

Staff told us they were given opportunities to share their ideas around innovation and improvements at staff meetings.

Staff could access professional development opportunities such as nurse apprenticeships and specialist training. However, some staff said they would welcome more opportunities for professional development.