Priory Hospital Burgess Hill

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all patients on admission. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit patients. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

However, care plans did not always include information about occupational therapy or psychology input.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We looked at seven patient records during the assessment and found that staff completed a comprehensive mental health assessment of the patient in a timely manner at, or soon after, admission. Staff assessed patients’ physical health needs in a timely manner after admission.

We found evidence in all the patient records we looked at that staff were carrying out initial risk assessments on admission, which staff then used to inform the creation of care plans, such as safety plans, to manage risks.

Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment. Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery orientated. Staff were encouraging patients to be involved and care plans were written in the first person. For example, despite a patient being unable to fully engage in the creation of their care plan, staff had still managed to include the patient’s own words where possible. Their family had also been involved in care planning.

However, we found that multidisciplinary input was not always added on care plans. For example, while we found some evidence of occupational therapy plans for patients, there were not regular updates always added on care plans to detail progress and therapeutic outcomes. Also, a patient had a psychology assessment completed, however there was no plan in place for the next steps.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

Staff provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the patient group. These included medication, psychological therapies, and occupational therapy input. The ward MDTs oversaw the care and treatment provided to each patient. The occupational therapy team described how they supported patients by adopting a flexible activity timetable tailored around patients’ needs, including access to life skills groups and linking in with local organisation to facilitate activities such as carpentry and pottery.

At the time of the inspection there was no psychology input as the interim psychologist, who was covering a maternity leave, had left the service. There was an active advert out to recruit to that vacancy. Some staff told us that patients needed specialist psychological support. The occupational therapy team told us that they had recently introduced assessments and group interventions to bridge the gap, but the focus for them was on stabilising the team and recruiting more occupational therapists. A new full time lead occupational therapist, who was previously working at another Priory service, was expected to be transferred to the hospital imminently.

Staff ensured that patients had good access to physical healthcare, including access to specialists when needed. Patients had access to doctors on each ward including consultant psychiatrists. Doctors told us that the patients were able to see doctors when they want, and they were often visiting the wards to chat with people.

Staff participated in clinical audit, benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives. In February 2025 Jupiter ward was accredited by the Royal College of Psychiatrics PICU accreditation process, which means they have been peer reviewed against an agreed set of standards relating to the quality of the service. The accreditation was valid for three years.

Managers provided new staff with an appropriate induction. The provider had devised induction plans tailored to specific roles, which were signed off by the staff member and their supervisors when completed.

Managers provided staff with supervision and appraisal of their work performance. Data submitted by the provider showed that all staff had completed annual appraisals in 2025. The percentage of both clinical and managerial supervisions completed monthly between December 2024 – November 2025 was consistently above the provider’s compliance target of 85%. Most of the months the percentage of completed supervisions was 100%.

Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge and ensured that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles.

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. Staff had received training in the Mental Health Act. For example, 93.1% of staff working on Venus ward and 97% of staff working on Jupiter ward were up to date with their training.

Staff had easy access to administrative support and legal advice on implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. Staff knew who their Mental Health Act administrators were.

The provider had relevant policies and procedures that reflected the most recent guidance.

Patients had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy.

We reviewed seven patient records and found that staff had 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.

Staff ensured that patients were able to take Section 17 leave when the doctor has granted this to a patient. Section 17 leave is the only way a detained patient can legally leave the hospital for an agreed period of time. Staff stored copies of patients' detention papers and associated records appropriately and so that they were available to all staff that needed access to them. We reviewed a sample of related documents for four patients and found that they were all completed appropriately. Leave was being reviewed promptly and staff were carrying out appropriate risk assessments before authorising leave for patients.

Staff did regular audits to ensure that the Mental Health Act was being applied correctly. The service was carrying out quarterly Mental Health Act audits carried out at ward level.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings. There were a range of meetings held regularly, such as monthly staff, patient safety and clinical governance meetings. There were also daily flash meetings to discuss issues arising for the previous day.

The teams had effective working relationships with other relevant teams within the organisation. For example, some staff told us that they were working well with members of the MDT and knew the patients’ needs well.

Staff shared information about patients within the team during shift to shift handovers. Staff were completing handover documents and the information included on them was in line with the patients care plans covering areas such as keeping safe, keeping connecting and keeping healthy. Staff also had devised a template to capture the information discussed during the daily flash meetings and ensure that any outstanding actions were completed.

The teams had effective working relationships with teams outside the organisation. We saw evidence of staff communicating with commissioners for example, about patient changes of observation levels and transfers to other services.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives. For example, through participation in smoking cessation schemes and healthy eating advice. The service employed a physical health nurse, who was providing individual and group sessions with patients on various health topics. There was also a notice board with information about the topic of the month. Staff had identified obesity as an issue at the service and there were weekly talks on obesity.

Ward activities helped promote a healthy lifestyle for patients. Patients had access to a gym, an outside area for sports, such as tennis, and a large sports hall equipped with various equipment and games. Patients were assessed by a doctor and a physiotherapist to ensure safe use of equipment and to devise appropriate exercise plans. The physiotherapist was on site once a week, with personal trainers on site twice a week, however some ward staff were also trained on assessing and supporting patients to use the equipment.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff used some recognised rating scales to assess and record severity and outcomes. For example, staff used the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale to measure psychiatric symptoms. However, some members of the MDT told us that not all outcomes were always measured and they needed more training on how to complete additional assessments to measure specific outcomes.

A patient told us that they only had one therapy session in the past five weeks. Some staff told us that MDT interventions were not always included in patient care plans. We reviewed seven patient care plans and found that MDT input was not always included. The care plans did not always include information about occupational therapy or psychology input. In some care plans we found evidence that MDT assessments were completed, but there were no regular updates about progress and therapeutic outcomes. This meant that the impact on patients from receiving psychology and occupational therapy was not always measured to determine progress and whether additional interventions were needed.

Staff used technology to support patients. Patients had access to phones and could use video links to maintain contact with family members and friends.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. We observed discussions where people were supported to do this and we saw evidence of it in the care records we reviewed. Most of the patients we spoke with told us that staff involved them in decisions about their care and treatment.

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. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history.