Priory Hospital Lincolnshire

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated effective as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good.Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all patients on admission. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice. The ward team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the ward. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit patients. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 6 care records. All records showed that staff carried out comprehensive mental and physical health assessments either before admission or shortly afterward. Care plans were holistic, person-centred, and designed to meet individual needs while supporting meaningful outcomes. Records were reviewed and updated regularly. Communication needs and preferences were clearly documented, and staff adapted their approach using various methods to enhance understanding and involvement where required.

Staff completed timely, thorough assessments covering physical, mental, emotional, and communication needs. These assessments were person-centred and reviewed regularly with patients and, wherever possible, their families. Clinical tools were used alongside professional judgment to develop a detailed understanding of each individual’s needs. When patients lacked decision-making capacity, staff followed legislation and best practice to ensure decisions were lawful and, in the person’s, best interests. Families were supported with appropriate information and resources to help them in their role. The service utilised input from specialist nurses to support specific patients who required additional support. These included Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) Specialist Nurses, Stoma Nurse Specialist and Ileostomy Nurse Specialist/Intestinal Failure Specialist Nurse.

Patients and, where appropriate, their families were actively involved in care and treatment planning. They felt listened to, understood, and that their needs and preferences were met. Some patients, due to their diagnosis or presentation, could not always participate fully. In these cases, staff promoted involvement as much as possible and followed legal frameworks when consent or decision-making capacity was lacking. Where patients were unable to communicate directly, staff worked with families to ensure their input informed assessments, care planning, and risk management.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

Staff followed National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, accessed regular clinical updates and we observed care aligned with current best practice guidance. Staff supported patients with their individual dietary requirements, delivering tailored assistance. Hydration and nutritional needs were assessed and monitored in accordance with national guidelines, with consistent documentation in patients’ care records.

Staff were encouraged to adopt innovative, evidence-based practices to enhance outcomes. They actively participated in clinical audits, benchmarking, and quality improvement initiatives. For example, the services forensic psychologist in Training was undertaking quality improvement research based on Lancaster Ward. This was approved through the ethics committee to ensure patients’ rights and wellbeing were upheld.

The hospital held the accreditation from the organisation Bild. This supported the staff to develop the skills and culture necessary to understand people’s needs and improve their quality of life, specifically in reduced restrictive intervention training (RRIT Training).

Priory Hospital Lincoln was part of a Priory Group peer review programme. Clinicians from other similar locations would visit the Hospital to share good practice and comment on areas of improvement. The last peer review was completed on 25th and 26th of September 2025 where positive verbal feedback was received with a formal report to be shared.

Mental Health Act Compliance

100% of staff had completed training on the Mental Health Act and demonstrated a clear understanding of its provisions, the Code of Practice, and guiding principles. Staff had access to administrative support and legal advice for implementation and were aware of designated Mental Health Act administrators.

The provider maintained up-to-date policies and procedures aligned with current guidance, which were readily accessible to staff alongside the Code of Practice. Patients were given clear information about independent mental health advocacy services.

Staff consistently explained patients’ rights under the Mental Health Act in an understandable manner, repeated explanations when necessary, and documented these interactions. Section 17 leave was facilitated when granted, and second opinions were obtained from appointed doctors as required.

Detention papers and associated records, including Section 17 leave forms, were stored securely and made available to relevant staff. Notices were displayed to inform informal patients of their right to leave the ward freely. Care plans included Section 117 aftercare arrangements for patients detained under Section 3 or equivalent Part 3 powers, where applicable.

Regular audits were undertaken to ensure compliance with the Mental Health Act, with evidence of learning and improvements based on audit findings

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff and leaders had strong collaborative working relationships within teams, across the wider organisation, and with external partners. Regular multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings were held to develop, review, and update care and treatment plans. Handovers occurred at the start of every shift and were consistently effective, ensuring comprehensive information was shared across teams. Staff reported positive communication with external services, such as local authority social work teams.

Established processes supported smooth transitions between services, and discharge planning was thorough, taking into account each patient’s individual needs, preferences, and circumstances. Clinical tasks were delegated appropriately, and referrals were made promptly to maintain safe, effective care through accurate and timely information sharing.

Patients and their families experienced well-coordinated care across teams and services. The service promoted a multidisciplinary approach involving doctors, nurses, psychologists, occupational therapists (OTs), occupational therapy assistants (OTAs), speech and language therapists (SALT), dietitians, and healthcare assistants (HCAs). External partners, such as the Assertive Transitions Service (ATS) and community-based forensic mental health teams (CFMHT), were invited to care and treatment reviews, ensuring continuity and integrated care for patients and their families.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The service maintained strong partnerships with local external providers, including GPs, dentists, and opticians. Patients were registered with these services upon admission based on their individual needs, and a GP visited the service for those unable to attend the surgery.

Regular health assessments were carried out, and staff referred patients to specialist services, such as occupational therapy (OT), to address specific needs. The service prioritised early identification of potential health risks, enabling timely interventions to maintain wellbeing and prevent unnecessary deterioration.

Staff empowered and supported patients to manage their own health and wellbeing, promoting healthier lifestyle choices. Patients were encouraged to retain as much independence as possible.

Staff encouraged health-promoting activities, for example, healthy eating advice, physical activity such as, walking groups, gardening/horticulture, outdoor pursuits, and sessions in the gym. Meals were freshly prepared on site, and healthy options were available, staff encouraged and supported patients to make nutritional choices. One staff member told us “The food is really good quality, and we look forward to our meals when at work. Patients also share positive feedback and we rarely receive complaints on the food”.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service had robust systems in place to ensure consistent and positive outcomes. Staff actively contributed to monitoring and improving care, using technology to support these processes. Care plans were reviewed regularly to keep them up to date and aligned with people’s changing needs.

External benchmarking and clinical audits underpinned continuous quality improvement (QI). The service engaged in and promoted QI initiatives and projects, working collaboratively with other teams and services. For example, the regional Mental Health Act administration project initially established four regional teams covering 49 hospital sites, providing support to staff and patients across all locations. This later evolved into the central quality and professional leadership team. The project delivered significant improvements in areas such as community involvement and communication, digital and virtual engagement, inclusion and flexibility for effective working, knowledge sharing, care quality, and staff development through enhanced induction training.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Patients were supported and empowered to make their own decisions about their care, treatment, and support wherever possible. For individuals who lacked mental capacity, staff carried out decision-specific assessments and recorded their findings, focusing on significant decisions to safeguard the patient’s rights and interests. These processes followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and promoted decision-making by the individual whenever feasible. Where patients were unable to make informed decisions, staff adhered to legal requirements and involved family members and relevant professionals in decisions made on their behalf. Staff considered each patient’s wishes, feelings, cultural and religious beliefs, social background, and personal history when making decisions.

For patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, staff complied with all legal requirements and respected patients’ rights. Patients were informed of their rights both verbally and in writing, including their right to appeal. For example, staff read Section 132 rights on admission and repeated this regularly or whenever there was a change in Mental Health Act status, Responsible Clinician (RC), or treatment plans. These readings were consistently documented in care records. Consent to treatment forms (T2 and T3) were present, well-organised, and accurately maintained. No concerns were identified in the records reviewed.