The Care Quality Commission
  • Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

The Priory Hospital Preston

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Rosemary Lane, Bartle, Preston, Lancashire, PR4 0HB (01772) 691122

Provided and run by:
Priory Healthcare Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment of Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units

We assessed the Priory Hospital Preston from 7 to 9 April 2026.

We assessed the service due to the length of time since our last inspection.

The Priory Hospital Preston was registered with CQC in November 2010 to deliver the regulated activities: Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The service had a controlled drugs accountable officer and a registered manager.

We visited the following wards as part of the assessment:

  • Cottam ward – an acute 12 bedded ward for adult males
  • Rosemary Ward – an acute 16 bedded ward for adult males
  • Elswick ward – an acute 12 bedded ward for adult females

We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

At this assessment we identified 3 breaches of regulations: Regulation 9 - Person Centred Care; Regulation 12 - Safe Care and Treatment and Regulation 17 - Good Governance.

We assessed 2 assessment service groups: Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units and Specialist eating disorder services.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary

The service had up to date Mental Capacity Act and Mental Health Act policies in place. Staff had received and were up to date with Mental Capacity Act training which was at 95% and Mental Health Act training which was at 92%. Staff ensured that patients were able to take Section 17 leave (permission for patients to leave hospital) when this had been granted and they explained patients’ rights to them at the required intervals.

Staff completed capacity assessments for patients and patients had access to advocacy.

Requires Improvement

We rated the service as Requires Improvement. We found 3 breaches of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, person centered care and good governance:

-Staff did not always identify patient risks and needs, and these were not always present in care plans, risk assessments and multi-disciplinary team meeting minutes.

-Staff did not always carry out environmental checks consistently on 1 of the wards and some areas of the environment were not safe.

-Handover meetings were not always effective. Information was not always shared verbally and oversight of staff such as identification of new staff attending the shift was not always completed.

-The service did not always meet the needs of neurodiverse patients. Staff did not always ensure patients had communication plans where it had been identified this was needed. The wards were noisy and reasonable adjustments were not always suitable for autistic people and people with a learning disability.

-Governance systems were not always robust. Management systems were not always effective at identifying concerns at ward level and risks were not always identified or managed effectively.

However

-There were sufficient experienced staff who had received relevant training and supervision to meet patient’s needs.

- Staff treated people with warmth, empathy and compassion. Patients felt safe on the wards and felt they could speak with staff whenever they needed to.

- The service encouraged patients to have a voice, listened to patient feedback and acted on this.

- Staff felt respected supported and valued and were proud to work for the provider.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

During an assessment of Specialist eating disorder services

Date of assessment: 09 April 2026

The Priory Hospital Preston is a 50 bedded mental health hospital specialising in the management and treatment of acute mental ill health and eating disorders.

At this assessment, we assessed 2 assessment service groups (ASG); Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units and Specialist Eating Disorder Services. We assessed all quality statements across all key questions for both ASGs.

The Priory Hospital Preston had 1 Specialist Eating Disorder ward:

  • Bartle ward – a 10 bedded ward for male and female patients

We found no breaches of regulation in the Specialist Eating Disorder Service.

We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

We rated the service as Good. The ward was generally safe, clean, well equipped and fit for purpose. Staff assessed and managed risks to patients and themselves well. Patients were involved in their care planning and risk assessments and staff actively sought patient feedback on the quality of care provided. Patients had access to a range of therapies and activities that were delivered in line with relevant national guidance.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary

Staff were trained in and had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles.

73.9% of staff had completed their training in the Mental Health Act as of the time of the inspection. 21.7% of staff had been assigned the training but not yet started it whilst 4.3% of staff were in progress of completing the training. When allocated a training course, staff were given a target completion date for them to complete the training by. Staff recorded as not started or in progress were therefore not considered non-compliant.

Staff had access to administrative support and legal advice on implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. The provider had relevant policies and procedures that reflected the most recent guidance. Staff had easy access to local Mental Health Act policies and procedures and to the Code of Practice.

Patients had access to information about independent mental health advocacy.

Staff explained to patients their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand, repeated it as required and recorded that they had done it.

Mental Capacity Act

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, in particular the five statutory principles.

69.6% of staff had completed their mandatory training in the Mental Capacity Act. 21.7% of staff had been allocated the training but not yet started it whilst 8.7% of staff were in progress of completing the training. When allocated a training course, staff were given a target completion date for them to complete the training by. Staff recorded as not started or in progress were therefore not considered non-compliant.

The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards. Staff were aware of the policy and had access to it. Staff knew where to get advice from within the provider regarding the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions. Managers gave examples of how capacity was considered and the processes that were followed within the service.

At the time of the inspection, no patients within the service lacked capacity. We observed that capacity had been assessed within patient care records. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history.

During an assessment of the hospital overall

Dates of assessment: 07-09 April 2026 with an additional evening visit on 14 April 2026.

The Priory Hospital Preston is a 50 bedded mental health hospital specialising in the management and treatment of acute mental ill health and eating disorders.

The service is regulated for the activities of Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The service has a registered manager and a controlled drugs responsible officer.

We visited the following wards as part of the assessment:

  • Rosemary ward
  • Elswick ward
  • Cottam ward
  • Bartle ward

At this assessment, we assessed 2 assessment service groups (ASG); Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units and Specialist Eating Disorder Services. We assessed all quality statements across all key questions for both ASGs.

The location had last been inspected in June 2022 where it was rated good overall and in all key questions. No breaches of regulation were identified at the 2022 inspection.

We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

We rated the location as Requires Improvement.

In the acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units, we found 3 breaches of regulations in relation to: making reasonable adjustments for patients with autistic spectrum disorder and a learning disability, management of risk assessments and care plans, management of health conditions, monitoring and maintenance of the environment and oversight of risks.

We found no breaches of regulation in the Specialist Eating Disorder Service.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

28, 29 and 30 June 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

  • The service provided safe care. The ward environments were safe and clean. The wards had enough nursing and medical staff. Staff assessed and managed risk well. They minimised the use of restrictive practices, managed medicines safely and followed good practice in safeguarding.
  • Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients and in line with national guidance about best practice.
  • The ward teams included to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the wards. Managers ensured that these staff received training, supervision and appraisal, though in the specialist eating disorder service but compliance rates on training completion on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 could be improved. Supervision and appraisal rates were progressing toward the provider compliance rate.. The ward staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with those outside the ward who would have a role in providing aftercare.
  • Staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively involved patients and families and carers in care decisions.
  • The service managed beds well, aiming to maintain bed occupancy targets. Patients were discharged promptly once their condition warranted this, unless external circumstances to the service delayed discharge.
  • The service was well-led and the governance processes ensured that ward procedures ran smoothly.

The eating disorder service is a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was acute wards for adults of working age. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the acute wards for adults of working age section.

We rated both core, and the overall services as good, because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well led.

21 November 2017

During a routine inspection

We rated Priory Hospital Preston as good because:

  • There were appropriate measures in place to safely manage the ward layout and environmental risks. This included the use of closed circuit television and the use of mirrors.

  • Staffing levels were adequate and could be increased when needed. There were few vacancies and patients had regular one to one time with nurses. There were effective systems in place to ensure that all staff received appropriate mandatory training this ensured that staff were up to date with the correct training.

  • Comprehensive care plans and risk assessments were fully completed and up to date. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly as part of a multi-disciplinary discussion. Patients were encouraged to be involved in their care plans and patient views were clearly documented within care plans.

  • The electronic care record system was easy to navigate and locate patient documents. This meant that staff could work efficiently and access patient information without delay.

  • There was good psychological provision on Bartle ward that was specific to eating disorders. This meant that patients were receiving holistic care as recommended by national guidance. There were structured patient activity programmes on each ward that were specific to meet patient needs. Patients met to discuss which activities they would prefer and suggestions were implemented where possible.

  • Staff demonstrated kind and caring attitudes towards patients. Patients described staff as approachable and helpful. The values and behaviours of the hospital were embedded throughout the service. Staff were aware of the values and behaviours expected of them and were rewarded for demonstrating them in practice. Staff morale was high. Staff enjoyed their work and strived to achieve the best for patients. There were positive results from the staff engagement survey.

  • There were many ways patients could give feedback about the service. We saw evidence of patient suggestions being considered and acted upon. There was a robust complaints procedure for staff to follow. Complaints were fully investigated and information shared with staff and other appropriate people.

  • The service aimed to provide patients with continuity of care. The service had agreements with local NHS providers that patients admitted to the hospital would remain there until their inpatient treatment was complete. There was effective multi-disciplinary working on both wards. A range of staff disciplines met regularly to decide care and treatment options for patients.

  • The food was described by patients as high quality. Patients gave very positive feedback about the food and choices available.

  • The service was beginning to implement the safe wards programme. Staff were using positive words and relaxation boxes were available for patients.

However:

  • There was no female only lounge on Bartle ward.

  • Physical health assessments on admission to the hospital had been omitted and not followed up for two patients. This meant that staff were unaware of any potential physical health issues and unable to initiate treatment.

  • Staff had a limited understanding of how to conduct a capacity assessment and implement the best interest’s checklist.

  • Staff had not received regular managerial supervision. This was not in line with the providers policy.

  • As required medication was not being reviewed in accordance to the national guidance.

13 September 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We rated Priory Hospital Preston as good because we were assured about the safety of patients being cared for in the hospital.

We inspected the safe domain following notifications received by CQC about absent without leave incidents. These had involved patients leaving the hospital through windows and doors. We were assured that the provider had taken appropriate actions to address these issues to avoid recurrence.

25 August 2015

During a routine inspection

  • We rated the Priory Hospital Preston as good.

Systems were in place to monitor and manage patient risk. Staff carried out comprehensive assessments in a timely manner and regularly reviewed these. Assessments of ligature risk (the risk created by places to which patients intent on self-harm might tie something to strangle themselves) were in place, along with policies to support the management of this risk. The hospital had embedded safeguarding throughout. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to report and raise any incidents and safeguarding issues. Staff had received up-to-date mandatory training. Managers assessed and reviewed staffing levels to keep patients safe.

Patients’ care and treatment was planned, delivered and reviewed regularly, in line with best practice guidance. Staff routinely collected and monitored information about patient outcomes. There were systems in place to ensure adherence to the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983, the MHA Code of Practice, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Patients had access to psychological therapies. Plans were in place to review the provision and quality of these therapies.

Feedback from patients, carers and relatives at the hospital was positive. We observed staff treating patients in a respectful manner, and with a caring and empathetic approach. Staff involved patients in their own care. Managers regularly evaluated feedback from patients to improve inpatient care and treatment at the hospital.

The hospital planned services to meet the needs of patients. Patients were provided with continuity of care, with staff liaising with outside agencies when patients were discharged from the hospital. Managers ensured there were continuous environmental improvements to ensure patients received care in well-maintained ward environments.

Patients had access to the complaints process. Managers listened to complaints and concerns from patients and made improvements when required.

Senior managers were visible and proactively engaged staff in the vision and values of the organisation. Staff felt supported and consulted about their roles. Staff told us they were confident in approaching their line manager. There were good governance structures with individualised and group audits in place to support and deliver safe care and to monitor the performance of the hospital.

However, there were some issues the managers needed to continue to address. These included reviewing and monitoring the quality of the psychological therapies to ensure it met patients’ needs; recruiting to the nursing staffing vacancies on Bartle ward and the maintenance of the perimeter fence.

25 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six patients during our inspection. A number of the patients we spoke with had used the service on a long term basis.

The feedback we received from people was generally very positive and people expressed satisfaction with their care and treatment. People told us they felt safe at the Priory and that their needs were well met. Their comments included:

'The staff here are excellent.'

'My wishes are considered and my requests are always met. They are a great lot of staff.'

'Managers are brilliant and go over and above what is their duty.'

Some patients we spoke with did feel that improvements could be made in relation to the number of agency staff used on their unit. One patient told us that agency staff were always 'very nice' but said it would be better to have permanent staff on duty at all times.

During this inspection we looked at how the care needs of people were met and how their welfare was promoted. We assessed a number of areas relating to staffing, including recruitment, staffing levels, training and support. We also assessed systems for monitoring the safety and quality of care that people received. The service was found to be compliant in all the areas we inspected.

12 February 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit we had the opportunity to speak with some patients. People that we spoke with were very positive about the care and treatment they had received at The Priory. Comments included:

'There are very little demands on me, which means I can concentrate on getting well.'

'They have looked after me here and now I am so much better, I will be leaving soon.'

'Most staff are lovely. They listen to you and they don't make you feel bad like some places I've been before.'

We viewed communal areas and some patients' rooms. We saw that the surroundings were pleasant and comfortable and that patients' rooms were nicely personalised with pictures, photographs and other such treasured possessions.

We also noted that there was a good amount of information posted about the hospital for the benefit of patients. We saw leaflets and posters giving information about the role of the Care Quality Commission, making complaints and advice on how to access local advocacy services, for example. We also noted that there was information aimed at patients' relatives about how they could access support or therapy for themselves.

During the inspection we looked at standards relating to how the patients' wellbeing was promoted and how people were protected from harm. We also looked at staff training and support and how the quality of services was monitored. We found that the service was compliant in all the areas we assessed.

29 September 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke to a range of people about the service. They included, patients, staff, and some external agencies in order to gain a balanced overview of what people experience. All comments were very positive.

People using the service told us staff were respectful and provided them with all the information they needed about any treatment or tests they were going to receive.

One person said, 'Everything has been as they said it would be its been a good experience for me'.

One person told us, "I have a care plan in my room, which was compiled by me and I generally agree to my treatment programme".

"I don't have time to get bored, as I have an intense daily treatment programme and regular group meetings, which are important to help me in my recovery".

"They come round in the evening and ask what we would like for lunch and dinner the next day and we always get what we order"

Mental Health Act Commissioner reports

Each year, we visit all NHS trusts and independent providers who care for people whose rights are restricted under the Mental Health Act to monitor the care they provide and check that patients' rights are met. Immediate concerns raised by patients on those visits are discussed, if appropriate, with hospital staff.

Our Mental Health Act Commissioners may carry out a number of visits to each provider over a 12-month period, during which they talk to detained patients, staff and managers about how services are provided. In the past, we summarised themes from the visits and published an annual statement followed by the provider's response where applicable. We are looking at different ways to indicate the outcomes of our monitoring in the future.