Priory Horizon House

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 assessment we rated well-led as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. 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, which they used to make improvements.

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 evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The management team clearly communicated the provider’s vision and values to frontline staff. The provider’s five core values were: Striving for Excellence; Being Positive; Putting People First; Acting with Integrity; and Being Supportive. Staff understood these values and applied them consistently in their daily work. They contributed to discussions about the service’s strategy through regular team meetings.

Staff also nominated their colleagues for the provider’s annual awards, demonstrating their commitment to embodying the organisation’s vision and values.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders had the necessary skills, knowledge, and experience to effectively lead and manage their team. They had a good understanding of the service they managed and were able to explain how the team worked together to provide care to their patients.

We spoke with 8 members of staff who felt that leaders were visible, supportive and approachable for patients and staff. Medical staff told us they felt very supported by the team and told us that the “managers are brilliant”.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider had a freedom to speak up policy and systems in place. This information was displayed for staff to see and there was an active freedom to speak up team who offered support around raising concerns. Staff felt that they could speak up if something was not going well and there were opportunities to discuss any issues and provide suggestions for improvements to the service.

We found that when concerns were raised, leaders acted promptly. They investigated issues sensitively and confidentially, and they ensured that learning was shared and used to improve the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff could apply to work flexibly to accommodate personal circumstances, including caring responsibilities and health needs. Managers put reasonable adjustments in place to support staff to carry out their roles effectively.

Staff from diverse backgrounds and ethnicities worked at the service, reflecting the patient group.

The provider established a range of staff networks that actively championed equality and diversity, including the Armed Forces Network, Disability and Difference Network, LGBTQ+ Network, Men That Talk Network, Women’s Network, Menopause Network, Neurodiversity Network, Parents Network and the REACH (Race, Equality and Cultural Heritage) Network.

Staff did not raise concerns about discrimination, and everyone we spoke with said they were treated fairly and had good opportunities for personal and professional development.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance.

Although there was a clear framework outlining what must be discussed at team meetings, we were not assured that leaders and staff acted upon this information in an effective way to address concerns.

During our inspection we identified several environmental concerns and highlighted these to the management team. This meant we were not assured that leaders consistently acted on the best available information about risk, performance, and outcomes, or that this information was shared appropriately across the service.

However, staff undertook and participated in local clinical audits in line with the provider’s policy. The service was in the process of implementing a new audit system, Logit, which was intended to strengthen oversight, improve accountability, and enhance the quality of audit data available to leaders.

Staff maintained and had access to the risk register, and they were able to escalate concerns when required. Staff also had access to the equipment and information technology needed to carry out their duties. The information technology infrastructure functioned effectively and supported improvements in the quality of care. Information governance systems were in place and ensured the confidentiality of patient records.

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 effectively with other agencies, including health and social care professionals. For example, we observed a discharge planning meeting which included a housing officer from the local authority.

Leaders attended quarterly safeguarding meetings with the Integrated Care Board (ICB) where incidents were reviewed and concerns escalated when needed. The service also worked proactively with out of area NHS services and commissioners to ensure patients could access similar community‑based activities as part of their discharge plans.

Staff gathered feedback from patients during the discharge process and used this to develop a display on the ward, demonstrating the service’s commitment to involving people and improving practice.

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.

Staff and leaders had a good understanding of how to drive improvement. Their approach was consistent and included measuring outcomes and evaluating impact. The service took part in research and national audits and used the findings to make meaningful changes. The hospital manager told us that doctors at the service were actively engaged in research with local universities and worked closely with local medical schools. The service had two new medical students due to start in August 2025 and continued to support nursing students from across the region. The service was awarded ‘Outstanding Learning Environment’ at the 2025 Priory Nursing Awards.

Staff were given the time and support to consider opportunities for improvements and innovation and this led to changes. Staff told us managers encouraged and supported their professional development.

Staff and leaders made sure that people using the service were involved in developing and evaluating improvement and innovation initiatives. Managers told us that patients ran their own community meetings with staff support, which had strengthened patient involvement and improved the quality of feedback. Our review of community meeting minutes showed a strong sense of trust between managers, staff and patients, who were encouraged to work together to problem‑solve issues within the service.