- Independent mental health service
Priory Hospital Burgess Hill
Assessment report published 22 May 2026
Contents
Ratings - Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
We spoke to six people who used the service, family members and carers and while we heard a mix of experiences, the feedback we received was positive overall. Most patients told us that they felt safe and supported and staff involved them in decisions about their care and treatment. They told us that staff were caring and helpful, and the premises were clean and well maintained. However, some patients told us that some staff members were not always engaging.
Patients told us that they had the opportunity to participate in activities and knew how to raise a complaint. Most of the patients we spoke with told us that they had good relationships with staff who treated patients as individuals and respected their needs and wishes. However, some patients told us that the food was not good. A patient also told us that because of the location of the hospital, it was difficult to access places of interest when on leave.
Family members and carers told us that staff were polite and demonstrated courtesy. While a family member expressed frustration with the mental health system as a whole and told us that there was lack of information provided by the hospital, another family member described the service as excellent and the staff as professional.