- Independent mental health service
The Priory Hospital Altrincham
Assessment report published 28 August 2025
Contents
Ratings - Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units
Our view of the service
We rated the acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care unit as Requires Improvement due to several concerns regarding the delivery of safe and person-centred care on Tatton and Dunham wards. Physical health observations were not consistently completed in accordance with patient care plans or the provider's Standard Operating Procedure. Care plans sometimes failed to reflect individual needs, particularly for patients with physical health conditions, neurodiverse diagnoses, or specific accessibility requirements, and did not consistently include the patient voice or evidence of their involvement in the planning process.
On both wards, the arrangements for medicine dispensing did not protect patient confidentiality. In addition, staff were not consistently adhering to key hospital policies, including those relating to dress code, smoking, and cleaning audits, and managers did not ensure these policies were fully implemented. Induction records for agency staff working on both wards were also incomplete, limiting assurance around the preparedness and safety of temporary staff.
We saw some positive and respectful interactions between staff and patients on both Tatton and Dunham Wards. Staff were supportive and responded to patients in a kind and sensitive manner.
The service provided a good range of activities, and had pleasant, accessible grounds that benefited patients and families visiting the hospital.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance
Mental Health Act
- 96% of staff on Dunham ward had received training in the Mental Health Act.
87%of staff on Tatton ward had received training in the Mental Health Act. - Staff were trained in and had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles.
- Staff had easy access to administrative support and legal advice on implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. Staff knew who their Mental Health Act administrators were, and staff told us that the administrator made regular contact via email with updates and any Mental Health Act actions required.
- The provider had relevant policies and procedures that reflected the most recent guidance. However, not all polices were updated in accordance with policy review due dates. For example, Section 2 Admissions - Receipt & Scrutiny of Detention Papers, Section 3 Admissions - Receipt & Scrutiny of Detention Papers, Section 4 Emergency Admissions - Receipt & Scrutiny of Detention Papers, had review dates of 4 November 2024; Section 5(2) Registered Medical Practitioner or Approved Clinician Holding Power - Receipt & Scrutiny of Detention Papers, had a review date of 27 October 2024; Nurse's Holding Power Section 5(4), had a review date of 28 October 2024; and Explanation of Rights under Sections 132 and 130D, had a review date of 12 January 2025.
- Patients had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy, and we saw advocates visiting the wards.
- Staff explained to patients their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand, repeated it as required and recorded that they had done so.
- Staff ensured that patients were able to take Section 17 leave (permission for patients to leave hospital) when this had been granted.
- Staff requested an opinion from a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor when necessary.
- Staff did regular Mental Health Act legislation audits, and these were reported as a standing item in the Clinical Governance Committee meetings.
Mental Capacity Act
- 96% of staff on Dunham ward had training in the Mental Capacity Act.
83% of staff on Tatton ward had received training in the Mental Capacity Act. - The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act. Staff were aware of the policy and had access to it.
- Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, in particular the five statutory principles.
- Staff knew where to get advice from within the provider regarding the Mental Capacity Act.
- Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions.
- For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions. Examples included assistance with personal care and the need for antibiotics.
- When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests. Staff told us about best interest decisions made in relation to vulnerable patients' access to social media and use of mobile phones on the ward.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 12 patients during the on-site assessment and 7 carers following the on site assessment. We received feedback from 2 stakeholders including advocacy services and commissioners.
Patient Experience
We spoke with 12 patients during the on-site assessment.
Most patients gave positive feedback about their interactions with staff on both Tatton and Dunham wards. They told us that staff were respectful and polite, and patients felt that staff genuinely cared about their well-being, needs and care. However, four patients told us that they had not had the opportunity to be involved in developing or to discuss their care plans.
Patients gave positive feedback about activities, describing an interesting range that included creative or relaxing activities on the ward, in the wider hospital grounds, or out in the local community. Half of the patients we spoke with were dissatisfied with the food choices or told us the food quality was inadequate.
Patients using the service had a range of accessibility needs. However, they told us that these needs were not always fully met due to limitations in the hospital building and facilities.
Overall, patients felt safe on both Tatton and Dunham wards. Several described the visiting arrangements as relaxed and flexible, with options for those who could leave the wards, to see visitors in the hospital gardens, or in the main restaurant.
Carer Experience
We spoke with 7 carers following the on-site assessment.
Carers generally expressed confidence in the care provided on both Tatton and Dunham wards, noting positive experiences and significant improvements in their relatives' mental health. One carer commented that their relative's experience at this service was significantly more positive than previous inpatient experiences elsewhere. Two carers reported feeling confident in the treatment their relative received, while a different carer said they had observed significant improvements in their relative's mental health since admission. The structured approach of the Alcohol Treatment Programme on Dunham ward was noted, along with the variety of activities available to patients.
Four carers told us they were able to contact and visit their relative without difficulty. Carers also spoke positively about the hospital's pleasant environment and relaxing grounds, which they found beneficial, especially when the ward was busy and noisy, as this could be difficult for some people to cope with. It was also noted that there was a restaurant/café that could be used during visits.
Two carers on Dunham ward told us about the support they received as a family, and 1 carer described the friendly environment where they had participated in a quiz activity during their visit.
One carer reported that their relative was provided with a folder of information and advice on discharge from Dunham ward, that contained contact details of clinics and doctors. Another carer told us that medical secretaries responded promptly to enquiries.
Five carers told us they felt listened to, were involved in the care planning process, or had their questions answered. Carers were provided with information on how to contact the ward and were encouraged and welcomed to attend care review meetings. However, 1 carer reported limited information sharing prior to discharge. Five carers told us they had confidence that their relatives' physical health needs were appropriately monitored and that treatment was provided as necessary.
Six carers reported good relationships between patients and visitors and staff. They described staff as polite, friendly, and said they were responsive when updates were requested. A carer told us that staff maintained their relative's confidentiality and only shared information when appropriate consent had been given.
Five carers reported that the food provided was good quality and offered a good level of choice and met their relative's specific dietary needs, with special options made readily available. The restaurant was described as well run, and catering staff were described as friendly.
One carer described the décor and accommodation as tired and said that it would benefit from refurbishment.
Stakeholder Experience
We received feedback from 2 stakeholders including advocacy services and commissioners.
Stakeholders told us that staff were responsive and accessible. For example, emails were always responded to, and staff were described as proactive and open to answering questions. Advocacy staff were welcome to join patient ward meetings.
There were no concerns about restraint, and stakeholders told us that restrictions were always explained, with a rationale. When a patient had been unhappy about their treatment, this was managed, and the issues were resolved on the day.
Stakeholders told us that ward managers had detailed knowledge of their patients and described the service as well-led, responsive, and highly effective.
Stakeholders described a good range of activities, that included some away from the hospital grounds, e.g. visits to the local park.
Stakeholders noted a lack of psychology provision, with limited and insufficient psychological treatment and assessment of patients.
Commissioners reported that the length of stay was shorter than at some other providers.