Priory Hospital Burgess Hill

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Staff were encouraging patient involvement in care planning and risk assessment. Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. The design, layout, and furnishings of the wards supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities and family relationships. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Patients we spoke with felt involved in their care. The care and treatment offered was discussed with patients during assessments. We reviewed seven patient records and found evidence in all of them of staff encouraging patient involvement in care planning and risk assessment, when this was possible.

Staff wrote care plans in the voice of the patient and they were individualised. Staff liaised with patients to identify strategies to manage risks. For example, listening to music and contacting a family member were included in the safety plan section of a patient’s care plan.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of patients and their individual needs. We observed meetings where individual needs and risks were discussed in detail.

Staff empowered patients to make their own decisions about their care and treatment. Patients had the opportunity to have one to one sessions with nursing staff.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families. There were facilities for patients to make phone calls and specific visitors rooms. A family member described to us how the service supported them to maintain contact with a patient, and despite living far from the hospital, staff were ensuring that they were regularly updated and involved during ward rounds. All the patients who participated in the 2025 patient survey stated that staff helped them to stay in touch with people they cared about.

Staff made sure patients could access information on treatment, their rights and how to complain. We saw that relevant leaflets and posters were on display on both wards.

Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. There were two multi faith rooms and the service ensured that patients had access to interpreters when needed.

Staff were taking steps to ensure continuity of care for patients. For example, we observed staff discussing a referral for a patient who was in need of support from a forensic service.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and other useful information. Patient noticeboards on the wards contained a good level of information about the ward, the local community and services available to them. The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. The provider’s electronic systems required staff to use a login name and password. Staff received data protection and confidentiality training which highlighted the need to maintain patient confidentiality and safeguard patients’ data.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about patient progress. We saw evidence of communications between medical staff and commissioners about patient progress and preparations for discharge.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider reported receiving 17 complaints between 01 December 2024 to 30 November 2025. Seven complaints were partially upheld and 10 were not upheld. There were no instances where complaints had been referred to the ombudsman. During the same period, the hospital also received 95 compliments.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. They received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings. Patient feedback, complaints, and compliments were a standard agenda item for the clinical governance meetings. We reviewed a sample of these minutes and found that staff were discussing and analysing complaints on a monthly basis and maintained a complaints action log to ensure that any actions were followed up and completed.

Patients, and their families knew how to complain or raise concerns. Where patients did raise complaints, they were investigated and they received feedback. Learning from complaints was identified and disseminated through a variety of communications methods.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met. The hospital had a lift to support people with mobility issues, and patients with mobility needs could access a garden space using the hospital’s main entrance. There were communal bathrooms for patients to use.

There was the appropriate level of medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers/co-ordinators. We found evidence in the patients records we reviewed of discharge planning discussion during multi-disciplinary meetings and staff liaising with commissioners and other services when needed.

Between 01 December 2024 to 30 November 2025 there were 23 delayed discharges including the PICU (Neptune) which closed in October 2025. However, these were due to external factors beyond the wards control, and where they occurred staff worked with stakeholders to manage them.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. They provided a variety of opportunities for patients to give feedback about the service, including patient forums, community meetings and surveys.

Staff completed diversity and inclusion training as part of their mandatory training programme. They also completed the recommended mandatory training in learning disability and autism. Staff were aware of the resources available to them to support patients during their care and treatment. For example, staff told us about supporting patients and families whose first language was not English.

The results from the 2025 staff survey indicated a score of 88 from 100 for questions related to how the provider was supporting diversity and inclusion in the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. They created personalised care plans to account for the patients’ needs, wishes and feelings.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge from the service. They told us about actions they were taking to support patient discharges and we saw evidence of it documented in care records. Staff worked in collaboration with other interested parties when planning discharges, such as the patients’ local community mental health teams and social services.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment offered to patients.