Priory Hospital Burgess Hill

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted quality, person-centred care. Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected analysed data about outcomes and performance. They used this to identify improvements.

However, the governance processes were not always operated effectively at ward level.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team. The staff members we spoke with appeared passionate about delivering quality care and treatment to patients and could explain how they were working to deliver this within the available resources.

The provider’s senior leadership team had communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service. Eighty six percent of the staff members who participated in the 2025 staff survey stated that they believed in the organisation’s purpose.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for their service, especially where the service was changing. However, some staff told us that they were unsure whether their voice was heard as their feedback did not always lead to change.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Each ward had a ward manager who were supported by a well-established senior leadership team.

Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed. They could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide quality care.

Leaders were visible in the service and approachable for patients and staff. Most of the staff we spoke with told us that senior leaders were supportive. Leaders told us about completing regular walk arounds of the wards to speak with staff and patients. However, there were some concerns from staff about the leadership style and line management support at Venus ward, as they felt it was not always effective.

Leadership development opportunities were available, including opportunities for staff.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Patients and carers had opportunities to give feedback on the service they received in a manner that reflected their individual needs. Most of the staff we spoke with told us that they felt able to speak up when they needed to. Eighty percent of the staff members who took part in the 2025 staff survey stated that they felt safe to speak up about concerns and felt confident that the organisation would take their concerns seriously.

Managers and staff had access to the feedback from patients, carers and staff and used it to make improvements. The service was conducting regular staff and patient surveys and corresponding action plans were in place. Managers had included these actions in the service improvement plan.

Patients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team to give feedback, and we found evidence that senior leaders were taking action. For example, senior staff told us that the provider’s freedom to speak up person recently visited the site and spoke with staff following some concerns raised.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Leaders took action to review and improve the culture of the organisation in the context of equality, diversity and inclusion. All staff were completing diversity and inclusion training as part of their mandatory training programme and there were monthly staff Your Say Forum meetings.

Staff were able to apply to work flexibly, for example flexible working agreements to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues.

The provider undertook equality monitoring of staff to ensure it is diverse in its make-up and representative of the patient group. There was a mix of staff from different backgrounds and ethnicities on the wards which were representative of the patient group. We reviewed the provider’s Workforce Race Equality Standards Report and Actions Update 2024-25 and found that among other, the provider were focusing on embedding and promoting their network of diversity champions and freedom to speak up champions, and work in partnership with the Your Say Forums across the organisation. The provider was also rolling out a BME coaching and mentoring programme for aspiring leaders as part of the organisation’s strategy.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

There was a clear framework of what staff must discuss at a ward, team or directorate level in team meetings to ensure that they shared and discussed essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints.

Staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts at service level. We reviewed the service improvement plan and saw that managers had included actions agreed following incidents. Senior management reviewed the progress of the site improvement plan during clinical governance meetings.

Staff maintained and had access to the hospital level risk register. Staff at ward level could escalate concerns when needed.

Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams, both within the provider and external, to meet the needs of the patients.

Team managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care. The provider completed an annual staff survey to help them with understanding this. The most recent staff survey had taken place in April 2025 and 63% of the staff group had responded to this.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work.

However, the service did not always have robust governance processes in place at ward level to ensure that issues were promptly identified and actioned. The audits staff completed were not always sufficient to provide assurance. For example, during our visit we found that incidents entered on the provider’s incident reporting system were not always informing risk assessments and care planning, and staff did not always add therapy input on the patients’ care plans. We reviewed a sample of completed audits and checks the provider submitted and found that the staff audits completed at ward level did not identify these gaps. This meant that the current auditing system was not fully effective. Care plan audits only reviewed patient participation in care planning. The provider submitted a copy of the minutes from a staff team meeting which took place a few days after our visit. These included an action related to our inspection findings indicating that the provider had acknowledged that this was an area of improvement.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Leaders regularly engaged with external stakeholders, such as commissioners. Some of the compliments included on the service’s compliments list were from external stakeholders, such as a psychiatrist and NHS Trusts. We saw feedback from an NHS Trust saying that the hospital was always responsive to individual needs.

Patients and staff could meet with members of the senior management team and commissioners to give feedback. Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams, both within the provider and external, to meet the needs of the patients.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Managers gave staff time and support to make improvements and this led to changes. For example, following some concerns identified during ward rounds, the service was planning to introduce daily ward huddles as an opportunity for each ward MDT to discuss the clinical activity over the previous 24 hours, identify any items that may have been missed or not done, and plan for the day ahead.

Innovations were taking place in the service. For example, staff had created a health and wellbeing patient booklet with useful information on a variety of health issues. The hospital had also developed carer handbooks which included information about monthly virtual carer forums that patients’ families and carer accessed from home. Furthermore, the service was undertaking various simulation exercises to identify learning and improve how staff responded to medical emergencies.

Staff used quality improvement methods and knew how to apply them. The medical director told us that they had won an organisation award in 2024 for going above and beyond in driving quality improvement. The service was also aiming to complete in the first months of 2026 a quality improvement project about debriefs. The aim of the project was to improve the quantity and quality of debriefs staff completed following incidents of restraint and seclusion episodes.

Wards took part in accreditation schemes relevant to the service and learned from them. In February 2025 Jupiter ward was accredited by the Royal College of Psychiatrists PICU accreditation process. At that time Jupiter ward was one of six PICU within the UK who have achieved accreditation and was the first Priory ward to achieve this.