Priory Hospital Enfield

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 hospital involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has remained as good.

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.

Staff demonstrated empathy and support for patients’ needs through their attitudes and behaviours during interactions. Throughout the inspection, we saw staff were responsive, respectful, patient and kind when interacting with patients. Staff were engaged with patients regularly and were able to identify and offer support at the time the patient needed it.

When discussing patients, staff were kind, respectful and spoke about patients as individuals. Staff we spoke with knew their patients well, this included understanding and knowing their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. There was no personal patient information on display that other patients or visitors would be able to see.

We spoke with 4 patients and 2 carers. Most patients told us staff were kind and treated them well, although one patient shared that they did not always feel listened to by staff, but this didn’t happen frequently.

The hospital made adjustments for disabled patients. During the referral process, the hospital ensured they did not accept anyone whose needs they could not meet.

Where a patient was already using the service and their needs had subsequently changed, the hospital acted promptly to engage with external services that could better meet that patient’s needs.

The hospital had a lift that patients could use to access the first floor and had adapted the use of a room on the ground floor for one specific patient at the time of inspection.

The hospital ensured that patients could obtain information about a range of things, including the ward, treatments, local services and their rights. The hospital considered the accessibility of the information provided and adapted this if needed. This included making written information available in other languages.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances.

The hospital ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. There was a multi faith room available on the ward that patients could access at any time. A chaplain visited the ward weekly.

Throughout the inspection we saw that staff had identified what activities patients enjoyed doing and encouraged and participated in these activities with them. For example, patients and staff were dancing to the patient’s preferred music, singing together and playing instruments together. We saw staff encouraging patients to engage with music, singing and dancing, in a kind and positive way.

The hospital strived to meet people's individual needs. We observed adjustments were made to meet the needs of a patient who required a specialist hospital bed, which was unable to be placed in the bedrooms on the first floor.

We observed information to show how people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, would be welcomed and supported on the ward.

The hospital provided a variety of food to meet the dietary and cultural needs of individual patients. Patients could make their own hot drinks and snacks and were not dependent on staff. There were no restrictions on when patients could access drinks and snacks.

Staff made sure patients could access information on their rights and how to complain. Information about the Mental Health Act and making complaints was displayed on a notice board on the ward.

Staff did not restrict patients’ access to their mobile telephones unless there was a clinical reason to do so. When patients did not have access to their own telephone, staff arranged access to telephones that could be used in a private space. During our visit, we observed some patients were using each other’s devices, we flagged this with senior management, and they confirmed that this would be monitored moving forward.

Staff monitored changing risks to patient safety and well-being, as well as potential risks patients may pose to themselves or others. We saw examples of multidisciplinary staff updating risk and care plans when patient need changed. There were processes in place that staff could describe clearly in how to identify and respond to changing risks to, or posed by, patients, including their physical health needs.

Staff had a good understanding of their patients, including their individual needs and risk factors. For example, some patients had an ADHD or a dual diagnosis. Appropriate care plans were in place to support the needs of these patients.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviour became heightened. Staff engaged patients and used their understanding of the individual and established relationships to manage behaviours before considering any physical intervention.

There had been 2 situations in the last 4 months where staff had used holds to restrain a patient. There were 18 instances of rapid tranquilisation being used on 6 patients between July and October 2025. 12 of these related to two individual patients and the service referred them to a more suitable environment.

Referrals to the ward were screened by the multi-disciplinary team and by the nurse in charge for out of hours referrals.

Most patients we spoke with said they were comfortable approaching staff with any concerns. Patients attended weekly community meetings where they could also raise any concerns.

Staff told us that they felt supported, valued and respected by their immediate colleagues, managers and senior managers.

Staff told us they were proud to work on the ward and enjoyed their jobs.

Staff were able to access support for their own physical and emotional health needs through the overall service provider.

There were several rooms off the ward that staff could use to take their breaks. Staff had lockers where they could securely store personal items. There were facilities to make hot and cold drinks, store and heat food.

Staff told us that at times they experienced verbal racial abuse from some patients. Staff said there was a culture of challenge around this behaviour and verbal racial abuse was immediately challenged by staff or discussed with the patient when they were in a calmer state. Staff said that managers supported them when speaking to patients to explain that it is not acceptable to use this type of language. The provider should continue to develop these processes to ensure staff are protected from experiencing this.

Staff said shift patterns and training schedules were well considered by managers and training could be easily accessed by all staff.

The provider recognised staff success within the hospital through staff awards and general feedback. The ward manager had won awards as newcomer of the year and for being supportive.