- Independent mental health service
Priory Hospital Solihull
Assessment report published 15 April 2026
Contents
Ratings - Long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults
Our view of the service
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%.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 10 patients across the 3 wards during inspection. All consistently told us they felt safe on the wards. Patients across all 3 wards described staff as respectful, polite and available when needed. Many said staff “took their jobs seriously” and were approachable when they had worries or wanted to discuss their care.
All patients said they felt involved in their care and treatment. Patients on all wards told us they had regular meetings with the multidisciplinary team and that they could have copies of their care plans.
Access to advocacy was good. Patients across all wards reported regular visits from advocates and understood how to contact them. Some patients told us this support helped them express their views and understand their rights. Patients also felt able to raise complaints or concerns informally, and several gave examples of issues, such as noise at night being addressed quickly by staff.
Patients described a wide range of therapeutic groups, gym access, cooking, budgeting sessions, men’s health groups and community activities. Patients on Millison and Elkin wards gave very positive feedback about access to meaningful occupation, including college opportunities, volunteer roles and support with employment. One patient on Elkin ward completed a university degree while in hospital and said staff supported them throughout.
A number of patients talked proudly about contributing to improvements, such as putting up pictures, decorating communal areas or being involved in wider hospital projects. Two Lived Experience Partners (paid by the service) described taking part in clinical governance meetings, recruitment interviews and service‑wide initiatives, including garden development and patient safety activities. Some patients highlighted specific events that made the hospital feel community‑orientated, such as a summer BBQ, outdoor cinema evenings, a Christmas party at a local village hall, and a recent trip to the zoo.
Patients told us the hospital enabled regular contact with family, and several said this was important to their progress. Patients described having frequent leave in the community, to visit relatives or engage in activities that supported their wellbeing.
Food was an area of mixed feedback. Some patients were satisfied with the choice and quality. Others said meals were limited in choice. Patients on Millison ward, who were able to cook independently, said this gave them greater control over their diet.
Across all wards, patients appreciated having staff available to speak to throughout the day. Patients on Millison and Elkin wards in particular described the hospital as supportive, with one saying it was the “best hospital I have been in” and another describing the staff as “a strange family” who knew them well. Patients told us they could raise concerns safely, were treated with dignity and respect, and that staff made efforts to understand their personal preferences and needs.
Several patients highlighted how clean the hospital was, with particular praise for the housekeeping team. Patients also described maintenance issues being resolved promptly, and several named staff from the maintenance team positively. Many patients described the environment as homely and welcoming.