- Independent mental health service
The Priory Hospital Preston
Assessment report published 24 September 2026
Contents
Ratings - Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
Patients told us they felt safe on the ward. Almost all patients shared positive feedback about staff. Patients said staff were, ‘brilliant’, ‘kind’, ‘friendly’ and ‘empathetic’. Patients especially praised the consultant who they told us they could talk to easily.
Patients mostly said they felt safe on the wards and told us that staff intervened quickly when there were issues. Patients said staff encouraged them to speak with them if there were things they were concerned about and said staff always had time to talk with them.
3 patients told us there were issues with the environment in relation to levels of noise, lighting and heating. Patients told us there were plenty of activities but that they did not always join in with them and staff shared that sometimes activities did not meet the needs of the specific patient group on the ward. Most patients told us they enjoyed the food.
Carers said that staff were friendly, approachable and they really seemed to care. 1 carer said staff had, ‘excelled’ and another carer said, ‘all staff are really lovely’. Carers felt their loved ones could talk to staff and were able to open up to them. Not all carers knew how to make a complaint, but all carers felt they would be able to raise a complaint if they needed to and felt this would be taken seriously.
We carried out 2 short observational framework inspections (SOFIs). We observed positive interactions with patients and found that staff engaged well with them and were warm, empowering and inclusive.