The Priory Hospital Chelmsford

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not moved between wards except for their benefit. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the findings.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff regularly met with patients to understand their views on care and treatment. We saw examples of these discussions in one-to-one meetings, care plans and multi-disciplinary meetings. Staff monitored patients’ conditions and discussed any changes at daily handover meetings.

Staff ensured that patients’ protected characteristics were considered. For example, care plans for patients with eating disorders, trauma histories, or sensory needs reflected these factors and included tailored interventions and appropriate involvement to support each patient effectively.

Community meeting minutes demonstrated that patients were offered the opportunity to give feedback about all aspects of ward operations, such as food, activities, the environment, facilities and resources available to them. Where feedback was negative, appropriate actions were raised to try to resolve these issues.

Staff developed a comprehensive list of neurodiversity resources to support autistic patients accessing the service. The list included signposting to information on diagnosis, general support, specific topics related to autism, technological aids, advocacy and peer support, as well as guidance on employment, legal rights, benefits, coaching, and relevant organisations that could be contacted for further assistance.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Results from the last discharge survey, where 3 participants responded, showed that 100% of patients felt ‘supported and prepared to engage in community life when they go home’ and 67% were supported to ‘stay in touch with people they cared about’.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Where this was appropriate, families and carers could visit people on the ward and there were rooms that were suitable for family and carer visits. If patients needed it, they were offered encouragement to phone families and carers so that they could stay connected.

Patients were supported to develop life skills in various areas, including accessing the community independently. For patients with eating disorders, who found eating in public challenging, they practised eating snacks in community settings as part of their recovery.

The service held regular meetings with external referrers and commissioners to ensure continuity of care and to support and clearly communicate discharge planning and transitions.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Team managers had access to information to support them in their management responsibilities. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care. This information was presented and discussed in clinical governance meetings.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress. Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed.

The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain to the provider and other regulatory bodies. The information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group.

Staff developed Positive Behavioural Support (PBS) plans for patients who required them, to ensure a thorough understanding of individual needs and to guide effective, person-centred support.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

During the inspection, we saw there were clear instructions on noticeboards on how to raise concerns and make complaints for people to follow. When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback. Patients were supported by the advocate at the service.

Staff knew how to protect patients who raised concerns or complaints of discrimination and harassment. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately.

Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigations of complaints and acted on the findings.

There were feedback points in the hospital where patients could scan a QR code on their phones which took them to an online form they could complete to give feedback about their care. At the time of the inspection, the service was also specifically seeking feedback from patients regarding their experience of observations, engagement and taking leave.

We saw from community meeting notes that staff and patients discussed complaints and concerns in the weekly community meeting and staff fed back at the beginning of these meetings updates and what had changed since the previous meeting. We saw ‘you said, we did’ boards on the ward.

In the 3 months prior to the inspection, the wards had received a total of 4 complaints. Chelmer Ward received 2 complaints: one related to a discharge summary, which was partially upheld, and another concerning the patient’s stay, which was subsequently closed. However, the service did not provide the outcome of the latter complaint. Danbury Ward received 1 complaint from a relative, which was still under investigation at the time of the inspection. Springfield Ward also had 1 ongoing complaint, relating to the patient's stay and withdrawal from care. Managers ensured each complaint was investigated and outcomes were shared with patients and relatives.

The service did not have any complaints that were referred to the Ombudsman in last 12 months.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Managers followed a clear admission inclusion and exclusion policy that guided them on the criteria to follow for admission to the service. The service had their own model of care with service aims, objectives, values and a philosophy.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care coordinators. Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care, for example, S117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services.

Between December 2024 and August 2025, the service had 2 delayed discharges. Delays were due to finding appropriate placements. The service monitored this and worked with commissioners and community teams to ensure discharge was facilitated as soon as possible. Patients’ average length of stay for Chelmer and Danbury ward was 79 days and 98 days for Springfield ward.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service admitted patients from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds. Staff asked patients about their religious and cultural needs upon admission to the ward. For example, a varied menu was provided for a patient who required halal food, and individualised meal plans were developed for patients with eating disorders.

Staff made sure patients could access information on treatment, local services, their rights and how to complain.

The service offered assessment to patients wishing to clarify whether a diagnosis of autism, or autism spectrum disorder was an appropriate explanation of their experience. Autism assessment was undertaken by a multi-disciplinary team of clinicians, who were trained in autism awareness and in using specific assessment tools such as the ADI-R (Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised) and the ADOS 2 (Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule 2).

At the time of inspection, 98% of staff had completed training in equality and diversity. In line with national guidance, the service had introduced The Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training on Learning Disability and Autism and compliance for this training at the time of inspection was 90.9%.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future, for example with home visits, or visits to potential placements that they may be discharged to.

Patients who were able to work towards discharge had clear plans to enable this. These plans were being developed alongside patients, families, carers, commissioners and other organisations. It was possible to see the work that was being done by the staff to try to support people in their journeys.