- Independent mental health service
The Priory Hospital Chelmsford
Assessment report published 17 October 2025
Contents
Ratings - Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
During our inspection visit on 4th September 2025, we spoke with 6 patients across Danbury, Chelmer, and Springfield wards and reviewed community meeting minutes. Most patients reported feeling safe on the wards, except for one patient on Danbury ward who said they did not feel safe. Feedback about staff was overwhelmingly positive, with patients describing staff as “all lovely,” “exceptional,” and saying the people “make it warm enough to feel like home.” One patient said they “feel like part of a community.”
Patients generally felt involved in their care and treatment, reporting that they were listened to by the multidisciplinary team and were able to raise concerns. Two patients gave an example of how their complaint about food led to improvements, with meals now being freshly prepared onsite. Most patients said they could go out when they wanted to, although 1 patient noted they had only been out twice in the past two weeks. One patient and 1 relative felt they would prefer to see a dietician in person instead of virtually on Springfield ward. Managers had advertised for a dietitian to deliver support in person.
We spoke with 5 carers or family members of patients across Springfield, Danbury, and Chelmer wards. All of those we spoke with felt their loved ones were receiving good care. They reported their relatives felt safe and staff were kind, supportive, and attentive to their needs. Carers said communication regarding care and treatment was effective; they felt involved in the process and kept informed throughout their relative’s stay.
Some carers noted that they continued to attend family therapy sessions even after their relative had been discharged and found this ongoing support beneficial. Two carers on Springfield Ward commented positively on dietetic support, although they expressed a preference for face-to-face sessions, which were currently being delivered virtually.
Carers said they were offered regular visits and reported their relatives received one-to-one time with staff as well as access to therapeutic interventions as part of their treatment. They also felt their loved ones’ physical health needs were met, and they were satisfied with both the food and the ward environment.
Carers felt confident in raising concerns and said staff were approachable and responsive. One carer highlighted that the support offered to their transgender relative was inclusive, respectful, and met their individual needs. Several carers appreciated being connected with others for mutual support. One described staff as going “the extra mile,” while another referred to nurses and support workers as “supportive, encouraging, and caring.”