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

We saw staff engaging positively with patients on the wards during the inspection. Most patients told us that staff were caring and helpful. They described being able to take their agreed leave, and activities that they enjoyed. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of patients’ individual needs. Patients on all the wards had direct access to hot drinks and snacks.

Several patients told us that they would like more access to the garden for fresh air. Access to fresh air was particularly an issue to patients on Byron Ward due to the garden being downstairs.

Carer feedback was mixed, but positive overall indicating good involvement in patients’ care when possible, and welcoming, approachable, flexible and professional staff. One relative reported that a staff member had been unprofessional with them whilst observing their supervised contact session.

Overall, the hospital environment was in a good state of repair and furnished comfortably. However, we were concerned that the hatches provided in the seclusion wards on Coleridge Ward (located at ground level) were undignified and could hinder communication with secluded patients. In addition, the seclusion room bathrooms could be observed clearly by staff through a window in the bathroom door and did not respect the patient’s right to privacy.

Some patients expressed concerns about the length of time between ward rounds, delays in accessing psychology, not enough activities at weekends, opportunities for fresh air and delays in getting leave.

Carers described staff as warm and welcoming, adjusting to support family members travelling from far away. We found evidence of good patient involvement in their ward rounds. Patients had information provided on how to access advocacy services.

Patients completed surveys on discharge. A patient representative attended clinical governance meetings, and the provider organisation was working to recruit lived experience partners to provide advocacy throughout the hospital.

Most staff we spoke with felt well supported by their immediate team and line managers and this was reflected in the most recent staff survey. Managers held cultural awareness days for the staff team, including a cultural dress day, and a cultural food day which had been very successful.

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.

We saw staff engaging positively with patients on the wards during the inspection. Most patients told us that staff were caring and helpful. They described being able to take their agreed leave, and activities that they enjoyed. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of patients’ individual needs.

Patient and carer feedback was mixed, but positive overall. Nine out of 10 patients we spoke with felt safe on the wards, but 3 patients on Keats Ward were unhappy with the staff support provided. Several patients told us that they did not have sufficient opportunities to go out for fresh air and getting leave to go out of the hospital at the time that they wanted due to staffing availability. Access to fresh air was particularly an issue to patients on Byron Ward due to the garden being downstairs.

Five out of 7 carers provided very positive feedback indicating good involvement in patients’ care when possible, and welcoming, approachable, flexible and professional staff. One relative reported that a staff member had fallen asleep whilst observing their supervised contact session and been quite rude to them.

Overall, the hospital environment was in a good state of repair and furnished comfortably. However, we were concerned that the hatches provided in the seclusion wards on Coleridge Ward (located at ground level) were undignified and could hinder communication with secluded patients. In addition, the seclusion room bathrooms could be observed clearly by staff through a window in the bathroom door and did not respect the patient’s right to privacy. We have raised these areas of concern to the provider.

Patients provided mixed feedback. Some expressed concerns about the length of time between ward rounds, delays in accessing psychology, not enough activities at weekends, opportunities for fresh air and delays in getting leave. Some patients provided very positive feedback about their experiences of staff support on the wards.

Carers were positive about patients’ work towards their discharge plans. They described staff as warm and welcoming, making adjustments to support family members travelling from far away.

Overall patients and carers reported that the wards were clean and tidy, and the food was fine, with lots of choices of activities to meet their preferences. Patients confirmed that they had access to cultural meals of their choice.

Patients said they enjoyed trips out provided by the hospital including to the seaside, museums, cafés, central London, bowling, and the cinema.

Patients had information provided on how to access advocacy services.

Some patients expressed concerns that a gym instructor was only available from Monday to Friday making the gym unavailable at weekends.

There was mixed evidence of patient involvement in care plans with better recording of this found in the care plans for patients on Keats Ward. However, we found evidence of good patient involvement in their ward rounds.

Patients reported 3-4 weeks between ward rounds, and this was reflected in records. Some said that this was not frequent enough.

Patients completed surveys on discharge. A patient representative attended clinical governance meetings and the provider was working to recruit lived experience partners to provide advocacy throughout the hospital.

Patients had access to call bells in their bedrooms and other communal areas. Patients gave some mixed feedback about staff support, indicating that some staff were more helpful than others, but said staff would come quickly for an urgent issue.

During the inspection we observed staff responding to patients’ needs promptly and appropriately.

Patients on all the wards had direct access to hot drinks and snacks.

Most staff we spoke with said they felt well supported by their immediate team and line managers. The most recent staff survey results from April 2025 indicated positive scores for empowerment at 79%, engagement and growth at 87%, purpose and teamwork at 88% and line management and diversity at 90%.

Managers held cultural awareness days for the staff team, including a cultural dress day and a cultural food day which had been very successful.

Prior to the inspection we were contacted by a number of anonymous staff members expressing concerns about a closed culture at the hospital, encouraging a punitive approach including bullying and racism. During the current inspection we did not find evidence of this from staff members we spoke with.