The Care Quality Commission
  • Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Priory Hospital Solihull

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

Showell Lane, Meriden, Coventry, West Midlands, CV7 7HZ 07738 885598

Provided and run by:
Partnerships in Care Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment of Long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults

We assessed Priory hospital Solihull in January and February 2026.

Priory hospital Solihull was registered to provide the regulated activities: Assessment or medical treatment for person’s detained under the Mental Health Act 1983; Diagnostic and screening procedures and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The hospital had a Registered Manager in place.

The hospital is located in Meriden, Warwickshire. It can accommodate up to 31 males and provides a rehabilitation and recovery service over 3 wards:

  • Millison ward can accommodate up to 11 males and offers Level 1 mental health rehabilitation inpatient services (previously known as community rehabilitation units).
  • Arley and Elkin wards can both accommodate up to 10 males each and offers a Level 2 mental health rehabilitation inpatient service (previously known as high dependency services).

At our last inspection there were no identified breaches under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We rated the hospital as good.

During this assessment there were no identified breaches. Our overall rating has improved from good to outstanding.

The service consistently provided high‑quality, safe and effective care in a well‑maintained and therapeutic environment. Staff assessed and managed risks effectively, involving people in decisions about their care and supporting their rights under the Mental Capacity Act. The use of restrictive interventions was low, with a strong focus on proactive and person‑centred approaches. Staffing levels were stable, training compliance was good and systems for managing infection prevention and medicines were effective, with staff responding promptly to any issues identified.

Care was personalised, holistic and recovery focused. People received thorough assessments and access to a wide range of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended psychological therapies, supported by strong multidisciplinary and partnership working. Staff consistently monitored outcomes to inform care and supported people’s physical health, wellbeing and independence. The service was highly caring and responsive, with people, families and professionals giving consistently positive feedback about staff kindness, respect and involvement. Leadership was visible and compassionate, promoting an open and inclusive culture where staff felt valued and confident to speak up, ensuring the service continued to deliver outstanding, person‑centred care.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well. The service had a Mental Health Act administrator who ensured all patients were detained legally. They maintained oversight of all detention documentation to ensure staff adhered to the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. During office hours, the Mental Health Act administrator scrutinised all relevant documentation for new patients detained under the Act. Out of hours, this responsibility was passed to the nurse in charge.

Staff explained to each patient their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand, repeated as necessary and recorded it clearly in the patient’s notes each time. Information about patients’ rights under the Mental Health Act were displayed in ward areas on notice boards. Staff made sure patients could take section 17 leave (permission to leave the hospital) when this had been agreed with the Responsible Clinician.

Patients had access to independent mental health advocacy. Advocates visited the hospital regularly and attended multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings upon request.

For patients detained under the Mental Health Act, responsible clinicians had completed appropriate statutory certificates authorising treatment. Second opinion appointed doctors (SOAD’s) authorised treatment when patients lacked capacity to consent. The responsible clinicians explained this process to patients.

The service had relevant policies and procedures in place relating to the Mental Health Act (1983), with easy access to the Code of Practice. Staff received and kept up to date with training in the Mental Health Act, which was mandatory for all care staff. At the time of our assessment, staff compliance was 95%.

During an assessment of the hospital overall

We assessed Priory hospital Solihull in January and February 2026.

Priory hospital Solihull was registered to provide the regulated activities:

  • Assessment or medical treatment for person’s detained under the Mental Health Act 1983
  • Diagnostic and screening procedures
  • Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The hospital had a Registered Manager in place.

The hospital is located in Meriden, Warwickshire. It can accommodate up to 31 males and provides a rehabilitation and recovery service over 3 wards:

  • Millison ward can accommodate up to 11 males and offers Level 1 mental health rehabilitation inpatient services (previously known as community rehabilitation units).
  • Arley and Elkin wards can both accommodate up to 10 males each and offers a Level 2 mental health rehabilitation inpatient service (previously known as high dependency services).

At this assessment we assessed the service group: long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults. We assessed all 33 quality statements across the 5 key questions.

Our overall rating has improved from good to outstanding.

6/7 November 2018

During a routine inspection

We rated Woodland View as good because :

  • The service provided safe care. The ward environments were safe and clean. Staff assessed and managed risk well. They minimised the use of restrictive practices, managed medicines safely and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
  • Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients cared for in a mental health rehabilitation ward and in line with national best practice guidance. The hospital provided a full range of physical healthcare for patients. This included access to a well man clinic within the hospital and access to a range of specialists through the local GP such as a diabetes nurse.
  • The ward teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the wards. Managers ensured that these staff received training to support them in their roles. Staff worked well together as a multi-disciplinary team and with those outside the ward who would have a role in providing aftercare.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively involved patients and families and carers in care decisions.
  • Staff planned and managed discharge well and liaised well with services that would provide aftercare. As a result, discharge was rarely delayed for other than a clinical reason.
  • Staff provided a range of activities for patients including paid work, volunteering and a full range of activities linked to the local community.
  • The service worked to a structured pathway of mental health rehabilitation. It was well led and the governance processes ensured that ward procedures ran smoothly.

However:

  • The hospital did not routinely record that supervision of staff had taken place so it would not be possible for managers to ensure all staff had received the correct level of supervision for their roles. A system had been put in place but this was not fully embedded as routine practice.
  • Staff did not always record general observations as they happened on Elkin Ward which could potentially put patients at risk although we saw no evidence that this had been the case.
  • The hospital did not always ensure scrutiny checklists for Mental Health Act paperwork were completed in a timely manner to ensure errors had been identified and could be corrected.
  • Staff counted cutlery in and out at mealtimes but this was not individually risk assessed for patients.

25/26 April 2017

During a routine inspection

We rated Woodland View as good because:

  • The hospital provided a safe and caring environment for patients. They had well equipped clinic rooms and stored medicines appropriately. Managers decided staffing levels based on the needs of patients and agency staff had been booked on long-term contracts while recruitment had taken place. Patients knew the agency staff and this ensured they received continuity of care. Staff completed risk assessments and updated them at daily handover.
  • Staff ensured patients had care plans. These had been regularly updated, were holistic and recovery focused. The hospital used the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and quality standards for prescribing, and this was recorded in patients’ notes. Patients had access to psychological therapies on a regular basis. Staff received regular supervision and had the necessary qualifications for their roles.
  • Patients felt included in the care and support they received. Staff listened to them and encouraged them to take part in activities to improve their wellbeing and recovery. Patients could give feedback to staff through community meetings and felt involved in the daily life on the wards. Carers felt well supported by staff and able to visit the service when they needed to.
  • Woodland View had a clear pathway for patients to progress through the service and back into the community. They had a wide range of staff including a psychologist, occupational therapist, social worker, doctors and nursing staff who supported patients with this pathway. They provided a wide range of activities to support the patients to become independent and able to support themselves. Staff listened to complaints and fed back to patients how issues had been resolved.
  • Staff had confidence in their managers’ ability to run the hospital and support them in their roles. Staff morale was at a high level and staff stated they enjoyed their work. Managers had worked with staff to reduce sickness levels, which were low. Staff had the opportunity for career development and progression within the service.

However

  • Agency staff could not log on to records without using the login from another staff member which could delay them accessing patients’ records.
  • Woodland View had errors in the way detail was recorded on Mental Health Act paperwork. This included the capacity to consent to treatment forms, the section 62 paperwork and the section 17 leave forms.
  • There had been some issues with medication being out of date. This was sorted at the time of the inspection but staff should monitor this closely in the future to ensure patient safety.
  • Due to the recent merger staff did not know who senior executives within the Priory Group were and it would help them to feel connected to the group if this improved.