The Priory Hospital North London

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

Our overall rating of well-led at The Priory Hospital North London Acute is Good.

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.

Staff were aware of and aligned with the hospital’s vision, applying its principles in their daily work. Staff were able to describe their collaborative approach to delivering patient care, highlighting effective teamwork and communication.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about changes within the hospital and staff shared that senior leaders operated an open-door policy.

Managers demonstrated the necessary skills, knowledge, and experience to effectively lead and support their teams. They showed a strong understanding of the services they managed and were able to clearly articulate how their teams worked collaboratively to deliver high-quality patient care. At the time of the inspection, the hospital director had been in post for a number of years, providing continuity and stability in leadership. Staff across both wards spoke very positively about their managers.

Leaders were visible throughout the hospital, and staff praised them for being approachable, supportive, and engaged, which contributed to a positive working environment. Senior staff demonstrated a proactive approach, responding promptly to areas for improvement and driving positive change within the service.

Staff reported that they felt confident in raising concerns and were aware of the whistleblowing policy.

The provider had a Freedom to Speak Up policy supported by clear systems, which were visibly displayed within the hospital. A designated Freedom to Speak Up Champion was in place. Staff stated they felt able to raise concerns if something was not going well and described having opportunities to discuss the service and suggest improvements.

Patients were also given opportunities to provide feedback on the service they received, for example through community meetings, one-to-one discussions with staff, and the use of complaints forms.

The service valued the diversity in its workforce. The service worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked there.

Leaders demonstrated an awareness of potential discrimination and inequality that could affect a diverse workforce. Staff reported feeling supported by managers in relation to their individual needs. During the inspection, we observed information and resources promoting inclusion, including LGBTQ+ support and other materials aimed at supporting staff who may feel marginalised. These were displayed in staff rooms and other non-patient-facing areas.

The service employed a diverse workforce, including staff from a range of international backgrounds. Recruitment and employment practices promoted equality of opportunity. Managers stated that the service did not discriminate against staff from minority groups, and staff did not raise any concerns regarding discrimination.

Managers implemented reasonable adjustments to support staff in carrying out their roles effectively. Staff reported that they were supported in meeting their individual needs and that managers were responsive and understanding.

Staff described being supported with flexible working arrangements and said that managers held regular discussions to understand their needs and identify how best to provide support. This contributed to a supportive and inclusive working environment.

The service demonstrated clear responsibilities, defined roles, robust systems of accountability, and effective governance to deliver high-quality, sustainable care, treatment, and support.

Findings from the other key questions showed that governance processes operated effectively at team level, with performance and risk managed well. Governance arrangements were proactively reviewed and aligned with best practice standards.

Since the last inspection, the service had made significant improvements in governance and oversight. All areas relating to governance, risk, and performance monitoring had been strengthened. As a result, the service was no longer in breach of regulation.

Effective governance and performance monitoring systems were in place to support service delivery, identify risks, and ensure the quality and safety of care. Procedures were established to maintain a clean and safe ward environment.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet patients’ assessed needs safely, with additional staff available where required. Staff received appropriate training, supervision, and appraisal, ensuring strong patient outcomes and clinical effectiveness.

A comprehensive risk register was maintained, and staff were able to escalate concerns appropriately. Staff concerns were aligned with those recorded on the risk register. The service also had an up-to-date business continuity plan detailing actions required in emergencies to maintain operations. Required notifications were submitted to external bodies in line with regulations.

The hospital director and senior leadership team had a clear awareness of areas for improvement and demonstrated a commitment to enhancing patient care and treatment. A detailed site improvement plan was in place, supported by regular quality walkarounds conducted across wards.

A structured communication framework ensured that staff were kept informed about service updates, incidents, safeguarding matters, complaints, and other essential information. This was achieved through regular team meetings, clinical governance meetings, and daily hospital briefings.

Leaders had established appropriate policies, procedures, and oversight activities to ensure safety and effectiveness. Regular audits were conducted, with clear action plans and timescales developed to address any identified shortfalls. Monthly analysis of audit findings ensured actions were completed, and outcomes were shared at clinical governance meetings to confirm that gaps had been addressed.

Audit processes were demonstrably effective and had led to measurable improvements, including enhanced record-keeping practices.

The service worked effectively in partnership with a range of external agencies, including health and social care professionals and the local authority safeguarding team. It had established strong working relationships with NHS trusts that commissioned services through block-booking arrangements. Staff also engaged with their respective professional bodies and contributed through undertaking specific roles within these organisations.

Patients, carers, and staff were provided with opportunities to meet members of the senior leadership team to share feedback and contribute to service development.

Staff worked collaboratively with multidisciplinary professionals to deliver holistic, coordinated care that met patients’ needs. They supported patients to access a wide range of services and maintained effective communication systems with health and social care teams to ensure continuity and joined-up care.

The provider had a dedicated quality improvement lead who visited the hospital regularly to support and oversee improvement activities. The hospital was engaged in several ongoing informal quality improvement initiatives, with plans in place to deliver the provider’s quality improvement training to staff and to develop more structured, formal projects at the site.

Clear processes were in place to ensure that learning was identified and shared following incidents, as well as from examples of good practice. Reflective practice sessions and debriefs were conducted with staff when required to support learning and development.

Staff were supported with opportunities for professional development and reflection, with access to mandatory training, regular supervision, and annual appraisals.

There was evidence that team meetings, nursing forums, and clinical governance meetings were held consistently and in line with recommended timeframes, supporting effective oversight, communication, and continuous improvement across the service.