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

At our last inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating has remained as good. This meant the service was consistently well 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 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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture that was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding and meeting the needs of people and communities.

Staff were aware of the provider values of ‘Striving for Excellence, Being Positive, Putting People First, Acting with Integrity and Being Supportive’ and demonstrated these values in their day-to-day work. Managers ensured the values were reinforced through team meetings and supervision.

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 with the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively and do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

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

Leaders were visible in the service and approachable for patients and staff. All the staff we spoke with said that the hospital director and other senior leaders were both approachable and engaged well with staff and patients.

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 provider created a positive culture where people felt that they can speak up and that their voice would be heard.

The provider had a "Freedom to Speak Up" policy, which emphasized that all employees should feel comfortable raising concerns and sharing suggestions for improvement. There was a Freedom to Speak Up Guardian and Freedom to Speak Up Champions available at the hospital.

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. All the staff we spoke with told us they felt confident in speaking up and in raising concerns or making suggestions for improvements.

Patients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team to give feedback. For example, patients provided feedback at the clinical governance meeting and feedback was sought from staff at breakfast meetings.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. he service worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked there.

The service had an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy which aimed to ensure that Priory staff put diversity and inclusion at the heart of everything they did and to highlight the commitment that the Priory made to promoting equality and preventing discrimination at work.

The service employed a diverse team of staff. Employment practices promoted equality of opportunity. 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 were able to apply to work flexibly e.g. flexible working agreements to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support.

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.

Clinical governance meetings were held monthly. We looked at the minutes for the previous 3 meetings and could see the agenda was comprehensive, areas of concern were identified, and actions were rated as red, green or amber to indicate if they were overdue, completed or in progress. The meeting was chaired by the hospital director and covered standard agenda items including patient and carer experience, adverse events and clinical risk management and clinical effectiveness.

Staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts. For example, 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 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 contingency plans for emergencies , for example adverse weather or outbreaks of infectious diseases.

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

Managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included dashboards which included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

The service worked well with other agencies including commissioning bed managers, health and social care professionals and the local authority safeguarding team. For example, the service understood the key priority areas for local safeguarding referrals.

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.

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.

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.