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

The Priory Hospital Chelmsford

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Stump Lane, Springfield Green, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 7SJ (01245) 345345

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

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.

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

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.

During an assessment of Hospital inpatient-based substance misuse services

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.

During an assessment of Hospital inpatient-based substance misuse services

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.

During an assessment of the hospital overall

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.

07-09 September 2021 17 September 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Priory Hospital Chelmsford, an independent mental health hospital providing 59 beds. They provide adult acute mental health wards, a child and adolescent mental health ward, an adult eating disorders ward and substance misuse inpatient services.

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

  • The service provided safe care. The ward environments were safe and clean. The wards had enough nurses and doctors and the wards were safely staffed. Staff assessed and managed risk well, risk assessments were up to date and reviewed regularly. Staff minimised the use of restrictive practices, restraint was only used as a last resort. Staff managed medicines safely and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
  • Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. Staff provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients and in line with national guidance about best practice such as National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines . 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. Mandatory training, supervision and appraisal rates for all wards was above 80%. 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 understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood the individual needs of patients.
  • On Willows Ward, staff actively involved patients, families and carers in care decisions and the running of the service. We saw evidence throughout the care records that demonstrated this.
  • 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.
  • The service was well led, and governance processes ensured that ward procedures ran smoothly. Recent changes to the senior leadership team had led to improvements throughout the service.

However:

  • The service did not always have the right number of registered nurses on shifts. Staff from other areas of the hospital would support where there were shortages.
  • On the acute wards, care plans were not always personalised and did not reflect the patient voice.
  • Staff on Danbury ward did not consistently record blood sugar monitoring results appropriately in the care records. We saw evidence that patients’ blood sugars were monitored appropriately but staff had not recorded the results on the appropriate form.
  • Some staff were not aware of the organisation’s visions and values when asked by the inspection team.
  • The service did not ensure there was an ongoing process to ensure physical health monitoring equipment was checked regularly so it works effectively.
  • Staff on Willows ward did not ensure all patients’ prescribing documents had a photograph of the patient on them to ensure all staff, including those unfamiliar with the service, administered medication to the correct patient.

23 and 24 April 2019

During a routine inspection

We rated The Priory Hospital Chelmsford as requires improvement because:

  • The provider had not ensured that they identified and mitigated all risks on the wards, including ligature risks, and prescribing errors. They did not have enough staff on the Children and Adolescent Mental health wards to keep young people safe. The Children and Adult Mental Health ward had experienced high levels of incident reports related to staffing levels, but the provider had not acted to resolve the issues.
  • Pharmacy staff and Mental Health Act internal audits had highlighted issues with prescribing and administration of medicine, but staff had not resolved all of these issues. Managers had not acted to address issues with staff performance in these areas. We found issues with storage of medicines and record keeping on one ward.
  • Staff on Springfield and Chelmer wards had not completed all their mandatory training.
  • Staff did not assess the physical and mental health of all patients in an individualised way.
  • The provider’s governance system was not robust enough to ensure the safe care and treatment of patients. Managers had not identified problems with risk assessments and medicines audits and did not keep appropriate records of agency staff work experience.

However:

  • The hospital provided a full multidisciplinary team and treatments in line with national guidance and best practice.
  • Staff completed and updated risk assessments for each patient and used them to formulate care plans to manage those risks. The service managed complaints and incidents well and learned from them through meetings and bulletins. Managers used lessons learned and introduced new ways to improve patient safety.
  • Staff on the adult acute wards treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and involved their family members in decisions about their care.
  • The design, layout, and furnishings of the wards supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity.
  • Patients were positive about the care and treatment they received at the hospital and staff supported them to maintain contact with the local community and their friends and relatives.

23 to 24 January 2018

During a routine inspection

We rated the Priory Hospital Chelmsford overall as ‘requires improvement’ because:

• The provider’s governance systems were not fully effective in monitoring the service provided. Two issues related to ligature assessment and management and male visitors to Chelmer ward.

• Some ward environments required improvement. The children and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) ward did not meet the standards outlined in the (QNIC) Quality Network for Inpatient CAMHS, the Royal College of Psychiatrist’s peer review 2017. Managers identified some improvements required, but did not set timescales for completion.

• The provider had not fully complied with eliminating mixed sex accommodation as ward staff had allocated a bedroom in the male area of Danbury ward to a female patient, which affected their dignity and privacy. Bedrooms on the ground floor did not have privacy screening on windows. Danbury ward’s fence in the women’s garden posed an absconsion risk as patients could potentially climb over. Staff told us that some patients had absconded from the external gardens. Chelmer and Springfield ward staff had not completed personal emergency evacuation plans for patients.

• The provider had not ensured that all staff were receiving supervision as per their standard of 90%. The provider’s recruitment and human resources processes were not fully effective as there were several nursing staff vacancies, which managers said was one of their challenges. Wards used a notable level of agency staff, particularly on the CAMHS ward that were not regular and managers were not regularly reviewing their training. Staff had not covered 33 nursing shifts from September to January 2018.

• Managers had not ensured that all staff had access to report incidents in a timely way. They were not fully reviewing those incidents reported to check the quality and identify risks and areas for improvements.

• Staff on Chelmer and Danbury wards had not fully completed initial assessments in six patients’ records. They had not always recorded their observation of patients.

• Chelmer staff had not recorded if blood borne virus testing was offered to patients being treated for addictions and had not documented if they had a history of intravenous drug usage.

• The provider had not given clear information to informal patients on Danbury and Chelmer wards as to when they could have community leave. Eight patient’s records did not have information about discharge planning. The Lodge residential rehabilitation service for patients receiving treatment for addictions was not fully open. This meant that patients who had finished detoxification on Chelmer ward did not move to the service.

• Staff’s practice concerning management of medicine on Chelmer and Danbury ward’s needed improvement, for example, we found gaps in records.

However:

• Patients told us that staff were caring, treated them with dignity and respect and gave them support. Most patients said they were involved in their care and treatment. Carers said that staff contacted them to gain their views.

• The provider held daily ‘flash’ meetings with staff and completed ‘quality walk rounds’ by senior staff, patients and staff to record the quality of the hospital.

• The provider had a system for investigating and responding to complaints. The provider had received 38 compliments about its service.

• Most staff reported effective team working, support and good morale. Staff had received mandatory training for their role. Managers had completed 100% of appraisals with staff.

• The provider had employed more doctors, including a specialist in working with patients with addictions.

• The provider had taken action to ensure patients with addictions had drug testing and appropriate assessments to establish withdrawal and inform treatment for detoxification.

• The provider could offer a range of therapies recommended by the National institute for health and care excellence. This included cognitive behavioural therapy and dialectical behavioural therapy.

6-7 December 2016

During a routine inspection

We rated the Priory Hospital Chelmsford as requires improvement because:

  • The provider had completed ligature risk assessments for each room, which were rated, and in date. However, staff did not record items including soap and towel dispensers in one room as present. The provider did not identify other items including hangers in wardrobes, garden furniture, trees and some door closers on the ligature risk assessment or rated these as a low risk. Staff did not identify ligature points in “safer rooms” on some wards. The shower curtains were collapsible at a weight of 40-45kg. However, some patients on Springfield ward were of a lower weight than this making this a potential ligature point. The provider managed the risks from ligatures by individual risk assessments and staff observations of patients
  • One patient in receipt of the addiction therapy programme and detoxification did not have a record of their dependency levels by drug testing prior to administration of treatment and to therefore, guide prescriptions for detoxification. Two records for patients receiving detoxification did not include all required assessment information to guide withdrawal management for individual patients and patients receiving detoxification treatment.
  • The provider did not have a specialist consultant for the addictions treatment programme at the hospital. Training, specifically in addictions, was minimal and staff received training in addictions at induction only.
  • Chelmer and Springfield ward had out of date bandages and defibrillator pads which would be required in an emergency. However, these were replaced on the second day of our inspection.
  • The provider complied with same sex accommodation where patients’ male and female sleeping areas were segregated. However, male visitors entered the female corridor to visit female patients. When staff required bedroom doors to remain open, due to high levels of observations, male visitors would be able to see female patients in their bedrooms. This was a breach of the privacy and dignity of those patients.
  • Chelmer ward, Springfield ward, the adolescent ward and the Lodge had blind spots where staff could not easily observe patients. However, this was mitigated by staff completing individualised risk assessments and observations.
  • Staff left the doors separating Springfield ward from Chelmer ward open. It was unclear where each ward ended.
  • Springfield ward rotas indicated the ward was understaffed on five occasions between November 2016 and December 2016. When we raised this with the ward manager, we were told that staff had probably been moved to other wards. However, we were unable to find a record of this on the rota.
  • Records for Chelmer ward, Springfield ward and the Lodge showed risk assessments completed and updated, however, records were inconsistent between paper and electronic forms. Patient admission checklists on Chelmer ward were not always signed by staff as completed.
  • Staff completed records of incidents of restraint. However, we did not always find accurate detail of staff involvement. The provider would not have access to accurate information should an incident require further investigation.
  • Young people had safes in their bedrooms. However, these were not used to store young people’s personal possessions, but used by staff to store restricted items.

However:

  • Wards had clinic rooms which were well equipped with emergency medication present.
  • The provider was clean and had a homely feel. Staff completed risk assessments and fire safety checks. Staff dealt with maintenance issues in a timely manner.
  • The provider reviewed serious incidents and made improvements to reduce the incidents such as additional training and improvements to the security and environment of the building.
  • Staff completed assessments of patient needs on admission and physical health assessments with on-going monitoring of physical health problems. Patient care records mostly contained up to date, personalised and holistic care plans, which staff reviewed regularly.
  • Psychological therapies were available to patients and patients undergoing the addictions programme completed the 12-step programme.
  • Patients with eating disorders received treatment in accordance with the provider policy and the Management of Really Sick Patients with Anorexia Nervosa (MARSIPAN) national guidance (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2014).
  • There was an effective system in place for checking Mental Health Act (MHA) documentation and staff had a good understanding of the MHA and the Code of Practice. Staff read patients their rights regularly. Staff had training in the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and generally demonstrated a good understanding of the MCA. No patients were subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application during our inspection.
  • Patients generally held positive views about the staff at the provider stating that staff were caring and attentive to their needs. Although patients on the adolescent ward said they felt unsafe due to recent incidents of absconsions from fire exits and verbal and physical aggression towards staff. The provider had taken action to address these incidents and to ensure the safety of young people.
  • Patients with an eating disorder used an additional therapy room to eat their meals in private and young people had their own dining area for meal times.
  • Systems were in place for managing and dealing with complaints with information provided to staff and patients. The provider shared learning from complaints with the staff team.
  • The provider had good governance systems in place with dashboards to monitor quality objectives, a monthly learning outcome meeting and daily ‘flash meetings’ to review incidents and staffing issues. Staff had regular supervision and yearly appraisals.

2-3 March 2016

During a routine inspection

We rated the Priory Hospital Chelmsford as requires improvement because:

  • The young people had no communal space that was exclusively for their use during the day. The lounges and the quiet room were used for other purposes such as therapy groups or staff meetings. The young people spent their leisure time during the day in the downstairs corridor. There were not sufficient sofas so they sat on the floor. Young people’s bedrooms led directly off this main thoroughfare corridor leading to concerns about noise levels in these rooms.
  • Patients on the adult wards sat in corridors as well due to lack of communal space. The eating disorder ward was used as a link corridor by staff and patients from other wards meaning that patients with an eating disorder had little privacy.
  • Privacy and dignity was not protected. Male patients on the acute ward walked along the female bedroom corridor to use the patient kitchen, female patients could be seen on their beds from the corridor. We observed patients queuing in a corridor for their medication outside of the pharmacy, some patients were clearly unwell and in their nightwear, this did not promote privacy or dignity. Young people shared a clinic with the adult wards. This meant that they had to leave the ward and walk escorted onto the adult wards to be weighed.
  • The CAMHS and Eating disorder wards were mixed sex and did not comply with the guidance for separate male and female areas. There were no separate lounges for females accessible during the day on the CAMHS and eating disorder wards.
  • The staff team did not consistently complete risk assessments that would assist in the care and treatment of patients. Whilst risks were identified the risk management plans weren’t clear in detailing the actions required to reduce the risks. Staff also did not update these assessments regularly after any new incidents.
  • Staff were not able to easily observe all parts of the wards due to the layout. On the acute ward the men’s bedroom corridor was upstairs which meant staff had to leave the main ward to maintain observations if male patients went upstairs to their room. The staff office was in a side corridor that did not allow the ward to be observed at all when staff were in the office. However, on the CAMHS ward staff were seen to regularly check all areas of the ward.

However;

  • Staff were caring and had good interactions with patients.
  • Staffing levels were good.
  • The hospital was clean and food was of a very good standard.
  • The hospital had effective governance systems and learnt from incidents and complaints well.
  • Medicines were safely managed.

25 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We looked at the care records of people who used the service and found people experienced care, treatment and support which was centred on people's individual needs. Where people were detained under the Mental Health Act (1983) we saw that mental health section paperwork was completed fully and fulfilled legal requirements.

We saw that care plans had been completed with people to ensure staff understood how to support people with their care and treatment needs. Care plans were reviewed regularly.

We spoke with people who used the service who told us that staff were very caring and that they were happy with the care and treatment they were provided with. One person said: "I feel really involved in my day to day care." Another person said: "I help make decisions about my goals."

During the course of our inspection we saw that people were supported to express their views and choices by whatever means they were able. Staff clearly understood each person's behaviours and their individual care and treatment needs. We saw that people were comfortable with staff and others at The Priory Hospital Chelmsford and that there was a relaxed atmosphere.

We toured the premises and found all areas decorated in a comfortable style and maintained to a high standard. The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of service that people received.

27 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who used the service who told us that they were happy with the service they were provided with. One person said, 'I would not be where I am now if it was not for the support I have had here.' Another person said, 'This place has been wonderful and the care is brilliant.'

People told us that they were consulted about their care and treatment. One person said, 'They asked me what I needed and for my views on the treatment.' Another person said, 'The doctor does a ward round and (doctor) talks about my treatment and keeps me updated.' Another said, 'They let me know my rights and go through it again with me,' and, "They always take time to listen to me." People also told us that they were provided with choices in their daily living, such as the support groups and therapy that they participated in.

People told us that the staff treated them with respect. One person said, "I have shouted at them (staff), but they have been there all the way.' We asked another person if they felt that the staff treated them with respect and they said, "Utterly. They are always there with a comforting smile."

We looked at the care records of five people who used the service and found that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Staff personnel records that were seen showed that staff were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

27 June 2011

During a routine inspection

People with whom we spoke confirmed that they were listened to and respected by staff. People reported that they had good access to different therapies and treatments and felt involved in their care. Good links were reported by individuals with families and other carers where appropriate for example through family therapy sessions.

People with whom we spoke confirmed that they actively participated in their own care and treatment programmes for example they had regular meetings with their responsible clinician, lead therapist and nursing key worker and were involved in the drawing up and implementation of their care plans. They confirmed that staff explained individual treatments to them and answered any questions that they may have.

People with whom we spoke confirmed that they were generally satisfied with the care and treatment provided by staff and felt safe in the hospital. They felt able to approach staff if they had any concerns and were confident that these would be addressed appropriately.

People with whom we spoke were generally complimentary about the environment and the facilities available in this hospital.

Mental Health Act Commissioner reports

Each year, we visit all NHS trusts and independent providers who care for people whose rights are restricted under the Mental Health Act to monitor the care they provide and check that patients' rights are met. Immediate concerns raised by patients on those visits are discussed, if appropriate, with hospital staff.

Our Mental Health Act Commissioners may carry out a number of visits to each provider over a 12-month period, during which they talk to detained patients, staff and managers about how services are provided. In the past, we summarised themes from the visits and published an annual statement followed by the provider's response where applicable. We are looking at different ways to indicate the outcomes of our monitoring in the future.