- Independent mental health service
The Priory Hospital Preston
Assessment report published 24 September 2026
Contents
Ratings - Specialist eating disorder services
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
Patients mostly spoke positively about their experiences on the ward. Patients described permanent staff as being friendly and caring. Patients felt safe on the ward and were generally happy about the care and treatment being provided to them. Patients felt involved in, and could describe aspects of, their care and treatment. Patients confirmed that they were offered copies of their care plans.
The occupational therapist completed sensory assessments with patients and provided recommendations to the ward based on these assessments. Patients confirmed that they were involved in these assessments and that staff supported their sensory needs. This included providing various sensory toys and equipment to patients, including sound boxes within patient bedrooms. The ward manager recognised that supporting patients with neurodiverse needs was essential on the ward and had linked in with the organisation’s lead for neurodiversity to improve staff awareness. The ward manager had also identified this through the staff appraisal process. At the time of the inspection, the service had 1 patient who had received a formal diagnosis of autism within the week prior to the inspection.
Patients felt that agency staff were not always as caring as permanent staff. Patients also explained that some staff had made comments or used language which was they felt was not appropriate or displayed a lack of understanding about eating disorders. Patients did note that this tended to be from staff who may not be very experienced on the ward.
Some patients also raised concerns about staffing availability during post-meal support and a further patient stated that there was sometimes not enough staff during meal times. This was discussed with the ward manager who was aware of these issues as they had been raised previously. The ward manager provided assurance that action had been taken to support patients with this. The ward manager had discussed the concerns at the patient forum to gain a more thorough understanding of the details. They noted there had been some new starters around the time of the concerns and the staff were still learning and gaining experience on the ward. The ward manager engaged staff in a shared piece of learning to ensure they all understood the expectations and responsibilities whilst providing care and treatment.