The Priory Hospital Hayes Grove

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 hospital leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

Our rating of well-led stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

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.

The audit programme provided evidence that leaders maintained robust oversight, applying good governance principles, addressing isolated shortfalls, and driving sustained improvement across the ward.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture.

Senior leaders had communicated the provider's vision and values to the frontline staff in this service. Staff knew and understood the provider's vision and values, and they were clear about the aims of their service.

Although staff morale was impacted by recent service changes such as the closure of Wickham ward and staff redundancies, staff generally described a positive culture within their own team and across the wider service. They were proud of their work. Staff showed passion and commitment to providing high quality patient care. Staff described strong staff teams that worked well together and supported each other.

The service set out a clear patient pathway and philosophy for their care and treatment which staff demonstrated.

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 and experience to lead effectively.

Leaders had the relevant mental health skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff and leaders were clear, and they understood their roles, responsibilities and accountabilities within the mental health pathway. Leadership training was available for nurses.

Staff spoke positively about local and senior leadership. Staff felt they were approachable, accessible and supportive. Staff said that senior leaders were visible on the wards.

The service aimed to create a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff said they knew how to raise a concern and would feel comfortable to do so. They were aware of the service’s whistleblowing policy and the freedom to speak up guardian.

Managers and staff had access to feedback from patients, carers and staff and used it to make improvements. Patients had opportunities to give feedback on the service. We saw examples of these within patient community meeting minutes and surveys.

The service demonstrated a positive learning culture. Staff told us they were aware of safeguarding briefings, learning sessions, whistleblowing routes, and Freedom to Speak Up processes. We saw that key information was disseminated across the ward, and staff described feeling confident to raise concerns without fear of reprisal.

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 an Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion policy and colleague charter in place. Staff had completed mandatory diversity and inclusion training. At the time of the assessment, 100% of staff had received this training.

The service used surveys to gather feedback from staff on their commitment to equality and diversity in the workplace. Most staff that responded to the most recent survey (April 2025) were satisfied with efforts to improve equality, diversity and inclusion.

There were a range of equality and diversity networks within the service for example, LGBTQ+, REACH (Race, Equality and Cultural Heritage) Men's group, Women's group, neurodiversity and Disability and Difference. They celebrated PRIDE month and Black History month.

The provider had initiated a taskforce to help implement the Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework (PCREF).

The service demonstrated a clear commitment to advancing equality, inclusion, and lived experience-led improvement through the ongoing implementation of PCREF. Governance structures are established and responsive, with evidence of regulatory engagement, independent scrutiny, and proactive action planning.

Some staff we spoke with told us they had been supported to work flexibly due to their personal circumstances.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver high-quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

We reviewed examples of governance and staff meeting minutes. There was a clear framework of what must be discussed at staff and team meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared.

There was an audit programme in place including essential topics such as care planning and risk assessment; observation and engagement; physical health and restrictive practice. The audit data we reviewed provides strong assurance that care planning and risk management processes are effective, timely, and consistently embedded across the ward.

Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams, both within the service and wider provider organisation, to meet the needs of the patients.

Leaders maintained effective oversight of risks through regular access to and review of the risk register. The register captured key workforce, safety, compliance, and sustainability risks, including staffing levels, skill mix, sickness absence, staff turnover, mandatory training, appraisal and supervision compliance, safer staffing, funding sustainability, staff wellbeing, and support initiatives. This ensured risks were monitored, mitigated, and learning was shared appropriately within the team. Staff at ward level demonstrated awareness of the risk register and escalated concerns promptly when required. Staff at ward level could access this and escalate concerns when required.

The service had plans in place for emergencies including major incident contingency plans.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. The information technology infrastructure, generally worked well and helped to improve the quality of care. However, staff told us some computer systems and internet connectivity could sometimes be slow.

Leaders had access to information to support them with their management role. They reviewed clinical governance data that provided essential information on the performance of the service and had effective systems to help monitor the care given through regular governance meetings.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Patient records were stored securely.

Leaders demonstrated a clear understanding of their partners and the communities they served. The service worked effectively with a range of external agencies, including health and social care professionals and the local authority safeguarding team. Staff maintained appropriate engagement with their professional bodies and undertook specific roles within these organisations to support safe and effective practice.

The service worked collaboratively with the local acute hospital to support patients who required acute care during their admission. A designated quality improvement lead was in place and undertook regular visits to the hospital; however, no active quality improvement initiatives were reported on the ward at the time of our visit.

Staff were provided with opportunities for learning, development, and reflective practice. The hospital is a recognised teaching organisation with formal affiliations to Canterbury Christ Church University, King’s College London and Goldsmith’s University of London. The service supports student learning by accepting placements from these institutions.

The service encouraged continuous learning, innovation and improvement.

The service demonstrated effective safeguarding and governance arrangements and had clear, targeted improvement actions to enhance staff safeguarding knowledge and assurance. Processes to support patient consent and carer involvement were well‑established and continually reviewed, promoting safe care, transparent communication, and compliance with statutory safeguarding and information‑sharing requirements. The provider had a quality improvement lead who visited the hospital regularly. These actions reflected a learning culture that uses feedback and assurance mechanisms to drive ongoing improvement.

Staff told us they were given opportunities to share their ideas around innovation and improvements at staff meetings.

Staff could access professional development opportunities such as nurse apprenticeships and specialist training.