The Priory Hospital Hayes Grove

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 hospital involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

Our rating of caring stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

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 actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

Staff always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. During the assessment, we observed staff engaging with patients. These interactions were positive, supportive and kind.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. We saw examples of patient involvement recorded in their care plans.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Patient feedback demonstrated high levels of satisfaction, with 100% positive responses across most survey domains. Patients reported feeling safe, listened to, respected, and involved in decisions about their care. They were confident staff would respond if they were worried or distressed.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Patients could access spiritual activities that were meaningful to them.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients and records were kept securely.

The service also demonstrated a commitment to carers and families through a weekly family support group, facilitated by a therapist, providing emotional support, education, and signposting to external resources.

Staff treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service made adjustments on Lower Court which were accessible to disabled patients. Staff were aware of the accessible room for patients with any accessibility difficulties. Staff gave an example of meeting different communication needs and described using communication with the use of interpreters for patients with language barriers.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services and patients’ rights. The information provided was accessible, we saw a wide range of leaflets and information was made available on wards.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers, if needed. Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. The service had a prayer room.

Patients had a choice of food to meet their dietary requirements. We saw evidence in care plans that dietary needs had been considered.

Patients gave feedback on the food at community meetings and at the time of assessment. Patients reported that while the menu offered a good range of options, the food provided was not consistently palatable or nutritionally satisfying. Staff and carers we spoke to raised concerns about the quality of the food. However, the service was fully aware of the feedback and continues to work closely with the catering provider to address and resolve concerns raised by patients and families.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We observed information to show how people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 would be welcomed and supported at the hospital.

Patients had access to advocacy and knew how to do so. Staff made sure patients could access information on their rights and how to complain.

Information about the Mental Health Act and making complaints was displayed on a notice board on the ward

Staff 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 were aware of and dealt with any specific support and/or risk issues. Staff demonstrated clear knowledge of each patient they supported on the mental health pathway, and would address any issues such as changes in presentation and mood or physical health concerns and plan care and accordingly and escalate if needed. We saw examples of risk assessments and robust physical health needs within patient records.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Staff were trained in reducing restrictive interventions.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they could access a psychologist on site, if they needed to and had access to a staff helpline.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff told us they felt positive and proud about working within their teams.

Staff feedback about flexibility in shift patterns and allocations was mixed. Some staff told us they received adequate support and flexibility in relation to their shifts. However, others reported that shifts were allocated with limited flexibility, including last‑minute changes and limited prior notice.

Most staff felt the provider could do more to improve flexibility around shift allocation. This had the potential to impact staff wellbeing and morale, particularly where changes were made at short notice.

During the assessment, we reviewed staff meeting minutes dated 30 September 2025. These recorded an update from ward managers and deputies confirming that no additional staff would be permitted to access flexible working arrangements, as the number of staff on the ward had reached the maximum allowable capacity. This provided clarity on the service’s position but limited the scope for further flexibility for staff. While this did not impact the delivery of safe care, it limited flexibility for some staff and remained an area leaders recognised required further review.

Leaders showed oversight of workforce Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) data, and the staff profile demonstrated diversity across roles. However, assurance was needed to demonstrate how this information was consistently applied to drive improvements, encourage disclosure, and assess the effectiveness of reasonable adjustments and flexible working arrangements.

Staff told us that they were able to discuss their well‑being during supervision sessions.