The Priory Hospital Chelmsford

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed interactions between staff and patients which were positive. Staff were observed to be discreet, respectful and responsive with patients, providing patients with help and emotional support and advice when they needed it. We spoke with 6 patients across Chelmer, Danbury and Springfield ward and they all said the staff were kind, caring and helpful.

We spoke with 5 carers of people across Danbury, Springfield and Chelmer wards. Carers told us that staff treated their relatives with “respect, dignity, patience and genuinely cared”, “it seemed more than just a job to them” and staff “went the extra mile”.

Staff supported patients in understanding and managing their care, treatment, or condition. This was evidenced through feedback from patients and relatives, as well as through care records.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff generally had positive relationships with patients where interactions were observed to be caring and compassionate.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of consequences.

Staff maintained patients’ confidentiality.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff within the service had a good understanding of each patient’s mental health, their risk history and their social circumstances outside hospital. Occupational therapists supported patients to pursue their interests and hobbies.

The service made adjustments for disabled patients by ensuring there was adapted access to the building/ward, and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs. Staff supported patients with communication needs by using visual aids.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, their rights and how to complain.

The information provided was in an accessible format to meet patients varying needs. For example, in easy-read language and pictures.

Information leaflets were provided in the languages spoken by patients and staff ensured that patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers when required.

A variety of food options were provided to meet the dietary requirements of different religious and ethnic groups, as well as to accommodate allergies and intolerances. We observed culturally appropriate meals, including kosher and halal options. Provisions were also made for patients with specific dietary needs such as gluten-free and vegan choices. Allergies were clearly recorded in both kitchen records and individual care plans to ensure safe meal provision.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. This included access to religious leaders such as imams or chaplains. There was a multi-faith room available to all patients.

A carers’ support group was provided for the relatives and carers of patients on Springfield ward, specifically aimed at supporting those affected by eating disorders. The group was facilitated by trained staff who offered psychoeducation on eating disorders. Participants shared their personal experiences of supporting a loved one with an eating disorder and provided mutual support to one another. Based on positive feedback, the group continued to be available for family members even after their relative had been discharged from the ward.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff made sure patients could access information on their rights and how to complain. Up to date information about the Mental Health Act, advocacy, the Care Quality Commission and making complaints was displayed on well-organised notice boards on all the wards. Patients were given information about their rights and were able to feedback their views and wishes to staff.

Patients could make phone calls in private. Staff did not restrict patients’ access to their mobile telephones unless there was a clinical reason to do so. When patients did not have access to their own telephone, staff arranged access to telephones that could be used in a private space.

Most patients could make their own drinks and snacks without relying on staff. Patients always had access to cold drinks and fresh fruit.

The service offered a variety of good-quality food. Following patient feedback, the service recently reintroduced a freshly cooked menu, replacing pre-prepared meals from an external food service provider. Patients reported that the food was now good, with a variety of options available on the daily menu. Additionally, patients with specific dietary needs were well catered for.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff introduced patients to the ward and the services as part of their admission. Patients told us they were given a welcome pack on arrival.

Staff involved patients and gave them access to their care planning and risk assessments. Patients met with their keyworker for 1-1 sessions regularly. Staff recognised and responded to specific risks. We reviewed care plans and risk assessments that outlined measures to manage a range of needs, including weight loss, physical health and hormone therapy.

Patients were encouraged and supported by staff to provide feedback on the service and their treatment. Staff held weekly community meetings where patients could express their views and suggest improvements for the ward. The outcomes of these meetings were displayed on ‘You Said, We Did’ notice boards around the wards. Recent meeting notes showed good attendance from both patients and staff. These meetings provided a space for patients to share feedback, ideas, and suggestions for ward improvements.

Staff made sure patients could access advocacy services. Information on how to contact the independent mental health advocacy service was displayed on a notice board.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centered care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. Service leads were present and visible.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.

The provider recognised staff success within the service, for example, through staff awards. Managers recognised staff achievements through an 'Employee of the Month' award scheme, where staff were nominated by their colleagues or managers. Winners were announced by the hospital director and received certificates and prizes in recognition of their contributions.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how this could be supported.

The service’s sickness and absence rate was low at 3.24% across Chelmer, Danbury and Springfield ward.
The staff survey conducted in April 2025 had a 61% response rate. Of those who responded, 72% reported feeling safe to perform their job, and 60% felt appreciated for the work they do.