The Priory Hospital Chelmsford

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

At our last inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all patients on admission. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice. The ward team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the ward. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit patients. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

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 maximised the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff completed a comprehensive mental health assessment of each patient either on admission or soon after. This included an assessment of the patient’s capacity to consent to admission and treatment.

Staff reviewed patients’ physical health on admission and at least once a week thereafter. This included checks of patients’ temperatures, pulse, oxygen saturation and blood pressure. Staff carried out an electrocardiogram on patients, prior to administration of antipsychotic mediation. Staff undertook blood glucose testing for new admissions and diabetic patients.

Staff developed a comprehensive care plan for each patient that met their mental and physical health needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what is important and matters to them and in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff followed National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Department of Health guidance for treating alcohol and drug dependence. People were prescribed medication to treat the physical effects of withdrawal and any co-morbid mental or physical health problems.

Patients attended individual and group therapy sessions and received support from their keyworker and other staff. Staff provided a range of psychological therapies including individual and group cognitive-behavioural therapy and dialectic-behavioural therapy. Each patient on the addiction treatment programme received a personalised timetable from the therapy team.

In addition to providing medicines and psychological therapy, the service provided therapeutic activities and occupational therapy. Examples of groups offered included walking, meditation, drama and goal-setting.

Staff used technology to support patient care. At the time of inspection, this included offering therapy sessions remotely.

Staff ensured that patients had good access to physical healthcare, including access to specialists when needed.

Managers ensured that staff had access to regular team meetings. We reviewed team meetings and saw examples of improvements and learning shared with staff to ensure best practice. Managers supported staff through regular, constructive clinical supervision of their work. Clinical and managerial supervision compliance was 96% for clinical staff across all wards at the time of inspection.

Managers supported permanent staff to develop through yearly, constructive appraisals of their work. All permanent staff, apart from new starters, were up to date with their appraisal. Appraisal meetings involved reviewing objectives, a review of knowledge and skills, training, professional registration, a summary of performance and setting objectives for the following year.

Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge. Priory Healthcare offered a leadership programme for new managers or for staff who wanted to progress into a leadership role. In the April 2025 staff survey, 85% of staff either strongly agreed or agreed that the Priory offered good opportunities for personal and professional development.

Managers dealt with poor staff performance promptly and effectively. We saw an example in a staff file where managers had effectively addressed a performance issue with a member of staff.

Managers ensured that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles. Most staff had completed trauma-informed care training and autism training.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked effectively across teams and services to support people, making sure they only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when they moved between different services.

Staff held regular multidisciplinary meetings to discuss patients and improve their care. At these meetings, staff reviewed the patients’ progress and the effects of medication.

Staff made sure they shared clear information about patients and any changes in their care, including during flash meetings. The multidisciplinary team met each day to review risks and incidents.

Staff had effective working relationships with teams outside the organisation for example local authority social services, GPs and community substance misuse services.

Information relating to care, advocacy, activities, communication needs and feedback on care were displayed on the ward notice board for patients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing so they could maximise their independence, choice and control, live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff identified patients’ physical health needs and recorded them in their care plans. Staff conducted checks of each patient’s pulse, temperature, weight, height and blood pressure each week.

Staff made sure patients had access to physical health care, including specialists as required. Patients were seen promptly by a doctor when they felt unwell.

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives – for example, through participation in smoking cessation schemes, healthy eating advice, managing cardiovascular risks, screening for cancer, and dealing with issues relating to substance misuse.

Ward activities helped promote a healthy lifestyle for patients – for example walking groups, sports activities and cooking healthy meals.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff continuously monitored patients’ health, their mental state and well-being. At daily flash meetings, staff noted details of patients’ sleep, food and fluid intake, personal hygiene, compliance with medication, and engagement in activities. Any changes in a patient’s presentation were discussed at the daily meetings.

Staff used recognised rating scales to assess and record the severity of patients’ conditions and care and treatment outcomes. Staff used the clinical institute withdrawal assessment for alcohol and the clinical opiate withdrawal scale to assess the severity of patients’ addiction and to help develop treatment plans. The generalised anxiety disorder and PHQ9 assessment tool, measuring mood and functioning, was completed by patients and reviewed by therapists to gauge progress.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when they delivered person-centred care and treatment.

Staff assessed each patient’s capacity to consent to admission and treatment on admission. Capacity was monitored and recorded at multidisciplinary team meetings. Records showed that these assessments covered the four elements of capacity.