Updated 28 October 2025
Located in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, Priory Hospital Lincolnshire is a low secure unit for males with mental health conditions. It offers support to those who are detained under the Mental Health Act (MHA).
The service has the capacity to house 28 males split equally across two wards. Lancaster ward for adult males, who require support to decrease their levels of behaviours that challenge, and Scampton ward providing continuing care, with a focus on community reintegration and preparing the person to move further along the care pathway, or to community living.
The secure services offer comprehensive support to people with complex mental health needs. The service provision is modelled on the NHS secure service specification for medium and low secure services, ensuring patients are given the highest quality of care to enable quick and smooth transitions into local services, wherever possible. The service is committed to delivering clinically effective, evidence-based treatment programmes for individuals who require secure care, providing both psychological and physical security.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and/or autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
The service was last rated as Good (published March 2019). This was an unannounced assessment, which means the provider was not told an assessment was going to be taking place beforehand. During this assessment, we looked at all quality statements across all 5 key questions. The current rating reflects the findings from this assessment. We rated this service as Good.
We spoke with 12 patients. Patient’s feedback was positive about the quality of care and treatment they received. They felt safe, supported, and cared for by staff, who were described as kind, caring and approachable. Staff were attentive to patient’s needs and supported them in a respectful, and dignified way, ensuring they felt listened to, involved, and valued throughout their care journey.
Patients told us that staff were always visible, available, and responsive to their needs by offering support, listening effectively, and responding promptly to meet the needs of the patient’s they cared for.
Patients, and their families, participated in developing care, and risk management plans. A collaborative approach ensured that care was person-centred, and treatment was amended to meet patient’s individual needs, preferences, circumstances, and expectations.
The service offered a comprehensive range of therapeutic activities which were well-attended by patient’s, helping to promote engagement, recovery, and inclusion. The activities supported patients recovery and rehabilitation, and provided a good daily structure, which offered meaningful engagement, and contributed positively to their physical, mental, and emotional well-being.
Patients were given support to raise complaints or concerns, and to share feedback, they felt listened to and empowered. Tthe food was of good quality, with a variety of options available to them which suited individual preferences, religious or cultural needs, and specific dietary requirements.
The service ensured that learning from incidents was identified, acted on, and shared effectively with staff to improve care, and the experience of the patient’s using the service. When incidents, for example, episodes of agitation or aggression occurred, staff responded promptly, reported them appropriately, and updated care and risk plans accurately. Following incidents, patients and staff had debrief meetings, the psychology team also facilitated individual or group reflective practice sessions and were also available on an ad hoc basis if required to provide support. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of the duty of candour. If things went wrong, patients and their families were offered clear explanations, and given apologies when required. The service had a Freedom to Speak Up (FTSU) ambassador who was also available to offer support.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance
Mental Health Act
100% of staff had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles. Overall staff demonstrated a good understanding of these. 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.
Staff had easy access to local Mental Health Act policies and procedures and to the Code of Practice. People had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy.
Staff explained to people their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they understood, repeated it as required and recorded that they had done so. Staff were able to ensure that people were always able to take Section 17 leave (permission for people to leave hospital) when this had been agreed.
Staff requested an opinion from a second opinion appointed doctor when necessary. Staff stored copies of people’s detention papers and associated records (for example, Section 17 leave forms) correctly and so they were available to all staff that needed access to them.
Staff did regular audits to ensure the Mental Health Act was being applied correctly and there was evidence of learning from those audits.
Mental Capacity Act
100% of staff of staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, in particular the 5 statutory principles
The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards. Staff were aware of the policy and had access to it. Staff knew where to get advice from within the service regarding the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards.
Staff took all practical steps to enable people to make their own decisions. For people who might have impaired mental capacity, staff had assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions.
When people lacked capacity, relatives and staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history. The service had arrangements to monitor adherence to the Mental Capacity Act.