The Priory Hospital Chelmsford

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Governance processes operated effectively. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected and analysed data about outcomes and performance and used this to identify improvements.

This service scored 71 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team. The values of ‘Striving for Excellence, Being Positive, Putting People First, Acting with Integrity and Being Supportive’ were demonstrated in their day-to-day work. Managers ensured the values were reinforced through team meetings and supervision.

We observed the service’s vision and values posters which were displayed in the hospital.

The service promoted equality, diversity and inclusion by ensuring these principles were visible, easily accessed and regularly discussed.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They said the service promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for development and career progression. Staff could also raise any concerns without fear.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The hospital’s leadership team was well-established and worked effectively together.

Leaders were knowledgeable about issues and priorities for the services they managed. They held regular meetings where information about the service was shared. Patients we spoke with told us they could speak with senior staff when needed, although some patients wanted to see regular senior leadership presence at community meetings.

Staff we spoke with said leaders were visible in the service, were approachable and worked well with them. Carers we spoke with felt able to talk to staff or managers when needed. Staff reported a friendly, open and supportive culture between colleagues and the leadership team.

Senior managers engaged with staff on how to improve the service. Staff told us managers gave them opportunities to make suggestions on how to improve the service.

Staff development was supported through access to further training and courses. Staff we spoke with reported that the provider offered opportunities for ongoing learning and professional development. A structured leadership programme was available to staff, comprising two levels: Level 1 – Management and Leadership Fundamentals, and Level 2 – Inspirational Leadership.

Some leaders previously worked for the provider in other roles before progressing to their current positions.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Patients and carers were given multiple opportunities to provide feedback on the service, including through surveys, community meetings, and direct communication with staff.

The service developed action plans in response to staff, patient and carer survey results, including clear timelines and updates on the completion of actions. Wards displayed ‘You Said, We Did’ boards to demonstrate how patient feedback had been acted upon. Minutes from staff meetings also reflected follow-up actions taken in response to staff feedback.

At the time of the inspection, the service was undergoing refurbishment where some patients felt they had not been as involved in decisions as they would have liked.

Patients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team to give feedback. Senior staff engaged with and encouraged staff to raise any concerns they had and took action to address these concerns.

The service had a freedom to speak up guardian and freedom to speak up champions who supported and encouraged staff to raise concerns.

Staff could access a whistleblowing helpline, anonymously, if need be, where they could report concerns about care and medical practice at the hospital, concerns about criminal behaviour or concerns about patient abuse.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

The service had policies in relation to equality and diversity, and staff and leaders had completed face to face and online equality and diversity training.

Staff and leaders gave examples of how equality and diversity were promoted within the service.

The service employed a diverse team of staff from international backgrounds. Managers said the service did not discriminate against staff from minority groups. Staff did not raise any concerns about discrimination and all the staff we spoke with said they were treated fairly and had good opportunities for personal and professional development.

Staff had access to counselling and well-being resources.

The service had an employee of the month award programme to recognise and reward staff.

Employment practices promoted equality of opportunity. Managers used screening tools based on best practice, to ensure decisions were free from bias and mindful of protected characteristics including religion, age, sex, ethnicity and disability.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

Our findings from the other key questions demonstrated that governance processes operated effectively at team level and that performance and risk were managed well. Governance arrangements were proactively reviewed and reflected best practice

There was a clear framework of what must be discussed at a ward, team or directorate level. This ensured that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed. For example, all leaders contributed to the monthly clinical governance meeting where themes and trends were reviewed covering standard agenda items including patient and carer experience, adverse events and clinical risk management, clinical effectiveness, clinical improvement, risk register and lessons learnt.

Staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts at the service level. For example, during the inspection we could see that lessons learned were discussed and shared with all staff relating to the timeliness of reporting certain incidents and the service had responded to patient complaints regarding the quality of the hospital food by re-introducing freshly cooked food and a new menu.

Staff undertook or participated in clinical audits. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results appropriately. For example, staff had conducted an audit on the treatment of patients who were on high dose anti-psychotic medication.

Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams, both internal and external, to meet the needs of the patients.

Staff maintained and had access to the risk register. The risk register for the hospital was up to date and included the risk of aggression and violence, extremes of temperature, risks of infectious diseases and building works carried out by external contractors. The risk register included a rating for the severity of each risk and control measures to mitigate against the risks.

The service had plans for emergencies, for example, business continuity plans including adverse weather or a flu outbreak.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. The information technology infrastructure, including the telephone system, worked well and helped to improve the quality of care.

Team managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care. Information was in an accessible format, and was timely, accurate and identified areas for improvement.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The service worked with other agencies including commissioning bed managers, health and social care professionals, the police and the local authority safeguarding team.

The service had developed relationships with NHS trusts that commissioned some beds at the service.

We sought feedback from stakeholders involved in placing patients at The Priory Hospital Chelmsford, focusing on systems, care pathways, patient flow, safety, and quality. One stakeholder provided feedback specifically on Springfield Ward and highlighted receiving consistent patient praise for the compassion and dedication of staff, particularly nursing assistants. They also noted improved inclusion of patient voices in care planning and MDT processes.

However, concerns were raised about poor communication between senior management and the clinical team, especially where decisions lacked consultation or alignment with patient needs. Additional concerns focused on the recent relocation of the eating disorder ward to the first floor. Although a lift was due to become operational, it is located within the child and adolescent ward, raising potential safeguarding concerns about unwell adults passing through areas for young people. However, at the time of inspection, the child and adolescent ward was not open. Managers have responded to these concerns, and stakeholders will continue to monitor the situation.

Another stakeholder noted that communication and information sharing could be improved on Danbury ward. For example, weekly updates and discharge summaries intended to support patient discharge from hospital were often shared inconsistently, delayed, or required follow-up. However, managers were actively engaging with the stakeholder to address these concerns and implement improvements in these areas.

Patients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team to give feedback. For example, patients provided feedback at community meetings and staff gave feedback at staff meetings.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

There was a focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation. The service focused on improvement and learning from incidents. Managers and staff shared lessons learnt after incidents and met to discuss incidents and make improvements.

Staff used quality improvement methods and knew how to apply them. For example, a member of staff was currently undertaking a project to improve student nurse placement experience by 50% by November 2025.

Springfield ward had received accreditation by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Staff participated in national audits relevant to the service and used the findings to support continuous improvement. Examples included audits on cleaning and infection prevention control, blind spot monitoring, hand hygiene, and medicines management. These audits resulted in identified learning, actions, and recommendations, which were implemented to drive improvements in practice.