The Priory Hospital Chelmsford

Updated 17 October 2025

The Priory Hospital Chelmsford is an independent mental health hospital providing 56 beds run by Priory Healthcare Limited.

The Care Quality Commission registered The Priory Hospital Chelmsford to carry out the following regulated activities:

• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

• Accommodation for persons who require treatment for substance misuse

• Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983

• Diagnostic and screening procedures.

The service has a registered manager and a controlled drugs accountable officer.

On 4 September 2025, we conducted an inspection of several services within the organisation. The services included substance misuse services, acute wards for adults of working age and eating disorder services for adults of working age. The following wards were inspected as part of this inspection:

Chelmer Ward

A 12-bedded, mixed-sex acute ward providing assessment and care for patients with mental health needs. The ward also supported some patients with addictions. This service was for privately funded patients, including those with medical insurance. Substance misuse services were inspected concurrently and are covered in a separate report.

Danbury Ward

A 17--bedded female-only acute ward offering inpatient assessment and treatment for patients with mental health needs. This ward catered to NHS-funded patients.

Springfield Ward

A 12-bedded mixed-sex ward dedicated to the assessment and treatment of patients with eating disorders. This service was funded by the NHS.

The Lodge

A 3-bedded, mixed-sex residential house delivering an addictions therapy rehabilitation programme. This service is reported on separately in the accompanying substance misuse services report.

At the time of inspection there were 36 patients at the service.

We last inspected this service in September 2021. At that inspection, the service was rated good in all domains, and we found no breaches of the Health and Social Care Act regulations (2008). Following this inspection the service has again been rated as good.

The service provided safe care. The ward environments were pleasant, safe and clean. The wards had enough staff and ward teams had access to the full range of specialists to meet the needs of patients. Staff minimised the use of restrictive practices and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding. Staff completed thorough risk assessments of wards and individualised risk assessments with patients and updated these regularly and/ or when risk presentation changed. Managers ensured that staff received training, supervision and appraisal and had developed strategies to boost staff wellbeing and recognise staff achievements. Feedback from patients and carers about the service was mostly positive. Most patients told us they felt safe, and that staff were caring and treated them with kindness and respect.

Updated 25 June 2025

The service provided safe care. The ward environments were pleasant, safe and clean. The wards had enough staff and ward teams had access to the full range of specialists to meet the needs of patients. Staff minimised the use of restrictive practices and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding. Staff completed thorough risk assessments of wards and individualised risk assessments with patients and updated these regularly and/ or when risk presentation changed. Managers ensured that staff received training, supervision and appraisal and had developed strategies to boost staff wellbeing and recognise staff achievements. Feedback from patients and carers about the service was positive. Most patients told us they felt safe, and that all staff were caring and treated them with kindness and respect.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary

The service admitted patients under the Mental Health Act 1983. Across Danbury, Chelmer, and Springfield wards, there were a total of 35 patients. Of these, 10 were detained under the Mental Health Act (MHA), while the remaining 25 were informal patients.

Staff had received face to face training on the Mental Health Act which 89.5% had completed. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles.

Staff had access to support and advice on implementing the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice.

Staff received assistance from the Mental Health Act administrator based at the hospital.

The provider had relevant policies and procedures that reflected the most recent guidance and staff had easy access to local Mental Health Act policies and procedures and to the Code of Practice.

Patients had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy. The service’s advocate regularly attended the wards. Patients could access independent mental health act advocates if needed.

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 it. Records we reviewed demonstrated this.

Staff ensured that patients were able to take Section 17 leave (permission for patients to leave hospital) when this has been granted.

Staff requested an opinion from a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor when necessary.

Staff stored copies of patients' detention papers and associated records correctly and so that they were available to all staff that needed access to them.

The service displayed a notice to tell informal patients that they could leave the ward freely. We saw signs throughout the wards showing this.

Staff did regular audits to ensure that the Mental Health Act was being applied correctly and there was evidence of learning from those audits. The provider regularly completed audits on the Mental Health Act paperwork to ensure the correct and relevant paperwork was easily accessible and stored correctly.

Mental Capacity Act

The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards. Staff were aware of the policy and had access to it.

Staff received and kept up to date with training on the Mental Capacity Act and had a good understanding of the five principles. Training on the Mental Capacity Act was mandatory, and the compliance rate was 87.3% for all staff.

Staff knew where to get advice from within the provider regarding the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards.

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. We saw evidence of this in patient records.

When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history. We saw evidence of this in patient records.

Staff made deprivation of liberty safeguards applications when required and monitored the progress of applications to supervisory bodies.

The service had arrangements to monitor adherence to the Mental Capacity Act.

Staff audited the application of the Mental Capacity Act and took action on any learning identified.

Updated 25 June 2025

The service provided safe care. The ward environment was pleasant, safe and clean. The ward had enough staff and the ward team had access to the full range of specialists to meet the needs of patients. Staff minimised the use of restrictive practices and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding. Staff completed thorough risk assessments of the ward and individualised risk assessments with patients and updated these regularly and/ or when risk presentation changed. Managers ensured that staff received training, supervision and appraisal and had developed strategies to boost staff wellbeing and recognise staff achievements. Feedback from patients and carers about the service was very positive. Patients told us they felt safe, and that staff were caring and treated them with kindness and respect.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance

Mental Health Act

Patients being treated for addiction and substance misuse were admitted to Chelmer Ward. The service did not admit patients detained under the Mental Health Act to Chelmer Ward.

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 received and kept up to date with training in the Mental Capacity Act and had a good understanding of the five principles. Training on the Mental Capacity Act was mandatory, and the compliance rate was 87.3% for all staff at the time of inspection.

Staff knew where to get advice from within the provider regarding the Mental Capacity Act. Staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent clearly each time a patient needed to make an important decision. Staff completed an assessment of each patient’s capacity to consent to admission and treatment on admission.

Updated 1 December 2021