Priory Hospital Burgess Hill

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed examples of caring interactions between staff and patients during our visit. Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We carried out an observation using the short observational framework for inspection (SOFI) on Venus ward and observed that while some staff were positively engaging with patients, some others were busy completing other tasks and did not have enough time to engage with the patients.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. The patients we spoke with told us that they felt supported by staff who involved them in decisions about their care and treatment. Some patients told us that they had the opportunity to discuss their care plan during ward rounds and one to one sessions with staff. A patient told us that a family member had the opportunity to attend ward rounds and were in constant contact with the hospital.

Patients told us that staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Patients said that staff were caring and helpful, however some patients told us that some staff members were dismissive and not always engaging. Family members and carers told us that staff were polite and demonstrated courtesy.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences. Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The wards were located on the first floor of the building, however the service had a lift to support people with mobility issues when needed. Staff reviewed any mobility issues to ensure they can safely care for all new admissions.

Patients had a choice of food that could meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. There were menus with selection of foods available at mealtimes and included arrangements for special dietary and cultural requirements.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. There were two multi-faith rooms available for patients. One was on Venus ward and another one in a communal area available for patients from other wards.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. 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.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters when needed.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff involved clients in their care planning and risk assessment. We found evidence in the patients’ care records that staff discussed risk assessments with the patients, and care plans were personalised and written in a way that patient could understand.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable of patients’ individual needs and spoke about how they involved patients in their care and treatment.

Patients were supported to maintain relationships and to stay connected with their family and friends. For example, staff told us how they supported a patient to maintain contact with their family who lived abroad. We also found evidence of this in the patient’s care records. The service had visiting facilities, including for children.

Staff regularly reminded patients detained under the Mental Health Act of their rights.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. We observed staff interactions with patients and observed meetings where emerging risks were discussed and actions agreed. Staff spoken with were able to describe how they would respond to a patient in distress or implementing emergency procedures for an urgent health need.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. We found evidence of this in patient’s care records. Staff devised positive behaviour support plans for patient when needed. A positive behaviour support plan is a document created to help understand behaviours and what kind of support the patient needs.

Staff had structures in place to capture feedback from patients. There were monthly patient forums where patients had the opportunity to provide feedback and raise any issues. These meetings were attended by senior staff. Community meetings were also taking place on each ward. These meeting minutes were being displayed on wards following the meeting and You Said, We Did posters were updated accordingly by staff. These posters had been updated just before our visit and included requests made by patients to increase one to one sessions with occupational therapists and opportunities to play tennis.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Most of the staff members we spoke with told us that when the wards were busy, at least an extra member of staff was needed to ensure that the therapeutic relationship with patients continued to be effective and that the necessary records were promptly completed and updated. However, staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. They felt respected and valued. Based on the 2025 staff survey results, 88% of staff said that they felt proud to work for the organisation.

Staff had regular opportunities to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experiences. Staff told us that they had access to regular team meetings and were able to raise concerns and make suggestions for improvements.

Some staff told us that they had opportunities and were supported to attend training to further develop their career. Internationally recruited staff felt well supported by the organisation during the process to gain their UK registration and settle in.

Managers were taking action to improve following staff feedback. Following the 2025 staff survey, managers completed an action plan to address concerns raised by staff. For example, scores and feedback from the staff survey indicated that it was not always clear to staff what their steps might be to prepare themselves for their next career step. An action had been created to liaise with the organisation’s human resources department to clarify the process for healthcare assistants wishing to move to the senior healthcare assistant role.