Priory Hospital Burgess Hill

Updated 22 May 2026

An assessment of Priory Hospital Burgess Hill took place between 10 December 2025 – 11 January 2026 using our Single Assessment Framework. As part of the assessment, we visited the service on 10 and 11 December 2025. We decided to conduct an assessment covering 33 quality statements across the five key questions to assess whether the service was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led, because it was rated Requires improvement overall and in the key questions of Safe and Well lead since our last inspection in August 2021.

Priory Hospital Burgess Hill was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in 2010 to deliver the following regulated activities:

• Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
• Diagnostic and screening procedures.
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The service had a registered manager at the time of this assessment.

The hospital is a purpose-built building and offers acute mental health support and psychiatric intensive care support for adult males. During the assessment the hospital operated one acute ward, Venus, with 16 beds, and one psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU), Jupiter, with 10 beds. A second PICU, Neptune, was closed on 20 October 2025, however it was still used to facilitate a Jupiter ward patient in need of long-term segregation. This is a situation where, in order to reduce a sustained risk of harm posed by a patient to others, a multi-disciplinary review and a representative from the responsible commissioning authority determines that a patient should not be allowed to mix freely with other patients on the ward or unit on a long-term basis. Three other wards had been closed by the provider in the past and remained closed. We visited both wards as part of this assessment. On the dates of our inspection visit there were eight patients admitted (one was on home leave) on Venus ward, and three patients on Jupiter ward.

At this assessment we assessed one assessment service group; Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units.

We rated the service as Good. People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Patients were cared for by skilled staff who delivered care and treatment in line with people’s individual needs. Staff developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion. Care records showed that staff involved patients in planning their care and treatment and decision making. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice, and treated patients with compassion and kindness. Staff felt respected and supported. The service had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement.

However, we found that patients did not always have unrestricted access to drinks and snacks. Incidents entered on the provider’s electronic incident reporting system were not always informing care planning. The medicines stock management was not always safe. Care plans did not always include information about occupational therapy or psychology input. Governance processes were not always operated effectively at ward level.

Updated 10 December 2025

An assessment of Priory Hospital Burgess Hill took place between 10 December 2025 – 11 January 2026 using our Single Assessment Framework. As part of the assessment, we visited the service on 10 and 11 December 2025. We decided to conduct an assessment covering 33 quality statements across the five key questions to assess whether the service was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led, because it was rated Requires improvement overall and in the key questions of Safe and Well lead since our last inspection in August 2021.

Priory Hospital Burgess Hill was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in 2010 to deliver the following regulated activities:
• Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
• Diagnostic and screening procedures.
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The service had a registered manager at the time of this assessment.

The hospital is a purpose-built building and offers acute mental health support and psychiatric intensive care support for adult males. During the assessment the hospital operated one acute ward, Venus, with 16 beds, and one psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU), Jupiter, with 10 beds. A second PICU, Neptune, was closed on 20 October 2025, however it was still used to facilitate a Jupiter ward patient in need of long-term segregation. This is a situation where, in order to reduce a sustained risk of harm posed by a patient to others, a multi-disciplinary review and a representative from the responsible commissioning authority determines that a patient should not be allowed to mix freely with other patients on the ward or unit on a long-term basis. Three other wards had been closed by the provider in the past and remained closed. We visited both wards as part of this assessment. On the dates of our inspection visit there were eight patients admitted (one was on home leave) on Venus ward, and three patients on Jupiter ward.

At this assessment we assessed one assessment service group; Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units.

We rated the service as Good. People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Patients were cared for by skilled staff who delivered care and treatment in line with people’s individual needs. Staff developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion. Care records showed that staff involved patients in planning their care and treatment and decision making. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice, and treated patients with compassion and kindness. Staff felt respected and supported. The service had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement.

However, we found that patients did not always have unrestricted access to drinks and snacks. Incidents entered on the provider’s electronic incident reporting system were not always informing care planning. The medicines stock management was not always safe. Care plans did not always include information about occupational therapy or psychology input. Governance processes were not always operated effectively at ward level.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary

Mental Health Act

Staff were trained in and had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles. The provider had relevant policies and procedures that reflected the most recent guidance that staff had easy access to. Patients had easy access to information about independent Mental Health Act advocacy. Staff explained to patients their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand. Staff stored copies of patients' detention papers and associated records appropriately.

Mental Capacity Act

Staff were trained in and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, in particular the five statutory principles. The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards. Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests. The service had arrangements to monitor adherence to the Mental Capacity Act.

Updated 15 October 2021

Our rating of this service went down. We rated it as requires improvement because: 

Although we found the service largely performed well it did not meet some requirements relating to safe care and governance, meaning we could not give it a rating higher than requires improvement. 

• The ward environments were not always safe, clean, or well maintained. Bedrooms and ward areas had fixed ligature points. The ward was in need of refurbishment.
• Staff did not ensure patients section 17 leave was always taken. When patients section 17 leave was cancelled at short notice, staff did not always document the rationale for the cancellation. Patients and carers reported that patients were not getting enough fresh air.
• Patients reported that the food was not always tasteful.
• Managers did not ensure all staff had an appraisal.
• The service did not actively support patients to access opportunities for work and education.
• The governance processes did not always address concerns or mitigate against identified risks. For example, the ligature audit had identified potential ligature points but there was no clear timeframes or action for when these will be addressed. It was not clear how patient feedback were captured and actions taken to address them.

However: 

• The service managed medicines safely and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all patients on admission. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit patients.
• The ward teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients. Managers ensured that these staff received training and supervision. The ward staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team.
• Staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.