Priory Hospital Solihull

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has remained outstanding. This meant services were tailored to meet the needs of individuals and delivered to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care.

The service provided exceptionally responsive care. Staff made sure patients were at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment. They spent time getting to know each person well, understanding their changing needs, and worked with them to agree how best to support them.

Patients were fully involved in planning their care. Staff listened carefully to what mattered to them and responded in ways that were respectful and flexible. For example, patients had personalised plans for section 17 leave, which balanced safety with independence.

The service offered a wide range of opportunities that helped patients build confidence and develop new skills. Many patients took part in paid work, volunteering, and education both inside the hospital and in the local community.

Information for patients was clear, up to date and easy to understand. People knew how to raise concerns, and staff took all feedback seriously. Most issues were resolved quickly. Patients saw their feedback led to improvements

Staff worked closely with other professionals to make sure people received the right support when they needed it. Reasonable adjustments were made promptly, such as providing mobility aids or adapted equipment. Discharge planning was well coordinated, involving families, community teams and commissioners.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at making sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff put patients at the centre of their care and treatment, working in partnership with them and responding proactively to any changes in their needs. For example, we saw a patient with a chronic physical health condition who attended hospital regularly for ongoing treatment. Staff took time to discuss the condition in detail with them so they understood how treatment might affect them and the benefits it offered. Staff also supported the patient emotionally throughout every hospital visit and spent time with them following each appointment. The patient had expressed their wishes to staff should their health significantly deteriorate. They wanted staff to take an active approach to treatment; staff respected and documented this.

We were impressed with the individualised care planning in place for managing section 17 leave. Care plans were tailored to each patient’s current risks and clinical presentation and clearly outlined the actions staff needed to take. Plans allowed some patients a short period of additional time to make contact with the ward or others before further steps were taken. Immediate contact with the police was not made as a default response; instead, staff used a staged and proportionate approach, involving the police only if the agreed timeframe had passed or if there were any indications of high risk. Staff followed a proportionate, risk‑based process in line with ‘Right Care, Right Person’ guidance, ensuring responses were appropriate and least restrictive.

Doctors did not automatically suspend section 17 leave if a patient failed to return at the agreed time. Instead, staff took time to speak with the patient about what had happened and explored the reasons for the delay. Patients were not denied leave as a result. Where the multidisciplinary team felt that unescorted leave might pose too much of a risk in the short term, escorted leave was agreed as a proportionate alternative, ensuring patients could still safely access time off the ward.

We saw numerous examples in care plans where individual patient wishes had been clearly recorded and respected, provided it was safe to do so. For example, one patient did not like being disturbed during the night but understood staff needed to check on their wellbeing. The patient agreed that staff would carry out visible checks through the visibility hatch, keep a small light on to support visibility, and use a torch if additional light was needed. This approach balanced respecting the patient’s preferences with maintaining their safety.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff ensured patients across all 3 wards had access to education and work opportunities. Of the 24 patients, 10 were in various paid roles. These included 2 lived experience partners; 1 peer support role; 1 barista who worked in the onsite coffee shop; 2 undertook car valet; 1 carried out cleaning duties and 3 patients did litter picking within the hospital grounds.

In addition to the paid roles, 4 patients engaged in regular volunteer work, as part of a local council initiative outside of the hospital. The initiative supported local communities to make a positive impact within their neighborhood. The 4 patients regularly undertook litter picking alongside others to help create a cleaner and safer environment for all.

One patient told us that when they were admitted to the hospital, they had been part way through a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. We were told how staff supported them to engage with lectures and coursework. This enabled them to complete the course in 2025. They invited family to attend the graduation ceremony, as well as the ward manager. Three other patients had undertaken additional training and education opportunities. These included completing some art courses; training to be a multi-skills technician (in property maintenance) and the completion of some on-line courses to include cyber security and artificial intelligence.

Staff also helped patients to look into new volunteering and paid work opportunities. One patient had been supported by staff to engage with a careers advice service and had been supported to apply for paid work. The hospital had a strong ethos around patients developing their skills, knowledge and confidence, to support them in their ongoing recovery journey.

Staff consistently supported patients to maintain contact with their families and people who were important to them. Many patients we spoke with told us how they see family members regularly, spending quality time with them and engaging in activities of their choosing. If for any reason patients were unable to leave the hospital, on-site visits were accommodated, with respect for privacy.

Staff encouraged and facilitated patients to access local places of worship. One patient told us that they attended the local church every Sunday. We also saw in care records staff had escorted patients to a local mosque, and a Sikh temple. The hospital had an on-site multi-faith room for the use of all patients, staff and visitors. This offered a private space for prayer and reflection. Patients could use this freely.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff consistently provided accurate, timely and comprehensive information to support safe, transparent care. They made notifications to external bodies, including the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the Local Authority and relevant commissioners, whenever required. Notifications submitted to CQC were comprehensive and consistently made within expected timescales.

Robust information governance arrangements were in place to protect people’s confidentiality. All staff understood their responsibilities around information governance and had received relevant training. Most records were held securely on electronic systems, with any paper records stored safely and only accessible to staff who required them as part of their role.

Patients were able to access clear, relevant and up‑to‑date information about their care and treatment. This included information about medicines, mental health, local services, their individual rights, how to raise concerns or make a complaint, and how to contact CQC. Information about advocacy services and access to solicitors was also readily available. Staff ensured information was displayed clearly on wards, reviewed regularly and provided in a range of formats to meet individual needs, including easy‑read versions and information in languages other than English where required.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were kept well informed about individual patient progress, with consent. Staff recorded this in patient records. Feedback received from relatives and commissioners, included effective communication and timely updates from the staff team.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Between 1 July 2025 and 31 December 2025, the service received one formal complaint, which had been raised by a family member. The complaint related to a lack of support for a patient with mobility needs and poor communication from escorting staff during an external appointment. Managers undertook a thorough investigation, upheld some elements of the complaint and provided a formal apology. An action plan was developed and implemented. Learning from the complaint was used to improve practice and strengthen staff awareness around supporting patients with additional needs and effective communication.

The service placed a strong emphasis on early, open and constructive resolution of concerns. During the same period, seven concerns had been raised. Staff addressed all of these promptly and resolved at an early stage without the need to escalate to formal complaints. These included one concern raised by a relative about a delay in receiving post and six concerns raised by patients. Issues raised by patients included aspects of care and treatment, a damaged item of clothing, a suggestion about catering and noise at night. There were no recurring themes. Actions taken were proportionate, timely and responsive. They included giving apologies where appropriate, supporting patients to have damaged items repaired, introducing a new process to ensure post was received promptly, and making amendments to individual care plans. All concerns had been resolved at the time of our assessment.

Patients we spoke with were confident about how to raise concerns or make a complaint and told us they would usually speak with staff in the first instance. Patients said they felt comfortable expressing their views about the hospital environment, facilities and their care and treatment, and felt listened to when they did so. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a clear understanding of the complaints process and described how they encouraged people to raise concerns early. Staff told us they aimed to resolve issues swiftly and locally wherever possible, while ensuring appropriate escalation when required.

The service used multiple, inclusive and proactive approaches to gather feedback from patients. Staff facilitated weekly community meetings on each ward, providing patients with regular opportunities to raise concerns, share ideas and offer suggestions about all aspects of ward life, including the environment, activities, therapy and day‑to‑day running of the service. Minutes were taken, and actions from previous meetings were reviewed at the start of each new meeting, enabling patients to see how their feedback had led to change.

In addition to community meetings, two lived experience partners undertook a ‘patient safety thermometer’ check on each ward. This innovative approach focused on rotating themes, including staffing and culture, participation and engagement, and environment and safety. Every patient had the opportunity to contribute. Feedback was collated and presented by the lived experience partners, with support from the occupational therapy team, at clinical governance meetings. This ensured that patients lived experience directly informed service oversight, learning and improvement.

The service clearly demonstrated that it valued patient involvement as central to learning and improvement. For example, following feedback from patients, changes were made to the boardroom environment to make it feel more welcoming and less formal. This included purchasing plants, displaying motivational quotes and ensuring sensory items and fidgets were available during meetings, supporting inclusion and psychological safety.

Learning from complaints, concerns and feedback was shared with staff through a range of forums, including staff meetings, handovers, supervision, meeting minutes and specific ‘lessons learned’ bulletins. This ensured learning was embedded across the service and contributed to a culture where feedback, challenge and lived experience were actively used to drive improvement and strengthen the quality of care.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients as and when necessary. For example, staff could source and supply mobility aids or equipment. We saw staff had recognised one patient would benefit from a raised toilet seat and a shower chair, which staff had purchased. We saw one patient had a computer and monitors set up in their bedroom. The workstation and required electrical sockets had been considered and deemed suitable by the patient and staff to meet their needs.

The hospital and bedrooms were spacious enough to accommodate patients who used a wheelchair. The hospital had a lift so patients and visitors could easily access both floors.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, with an on-call rota system in place, so staff could seek advice throughout the 24-hour period. A doctor could attend the ward quickly in the event of a medical emergency.

The MDT worked with patients, families, care co-ordinators and commissioning teams throughout each patient’s admission when preparing for and planning discharge. Regular Care Programme Approach (CPA) meetings held demonstrated a multi agency approach, with relevant external healthcare professionals and family members being invited to discuss progress and progression. Each patients care records held all relevant contact details for healthcare professionals and organisations involved in care and treatment.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care and held required aftercare meetings in line with the Mental Health Act. We saw minutes of a discharge planning meeting which was comprehensive and included relevant contact numbers, given to the patient to seek support for their mental health if required.

At the time of our assessment, the hospital had 2 patients whose discharge had been delayed. One was complicated due to the patient moving out of England, along with awaiting confirmation of a guardianship order. The second delay was pending funding confirmation. A placement had been identified, and the hospital had worked with the patient and the new provider to plan graduated leave prior to the full discharge.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the patients using the service felt empowered to give their views. The hospital recognised those who were more likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. The hospital had a diverse group of staff and patients. Psychology and occupational therapy staff had worked with some patients, who led a 6-week group called ‘Roots and Reality’. This enabled patients to share some insights with their peers into their cultural heritage. Therapy staff supported a number of patients to prepare a presentation, and to cook a flavour of some traditional delicacies for all to taste. Some of the areas covered included the fundamentals of Islam; Gypsy Romany way of life; culture of Pakistan; Christianity and Spirituality.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights, with compliance being 95% at the time of assessment.

The hospital had a strong assessment programme in place for neurodiversity. As some patients had been assessed and diagnosed as being neuro-diverse, a recent initiative was the introduction of an autism lead. The hospital strived to work towards the environment being autism friendly, in line with Culture of Care Standards.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. People were given exceptional support to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and partner agencies were actively involved in planning the care and treatment of patients with complex and evolving needs. The service supported people with a range of needs, including mental health conditions, neurodiversity and long‑term physical health conditions. Care planning was highly personalised and consistently co‑produced with patients and, where appropriate, their families and carers. Each care plan clearly reflected the patient’s voice, priorities, wishes and feelings, including where these differed from wider multidisciplinary views.

Staff held open, ongoing and meaningful discussions with patients about their current and future care and treatment. As people’s needs changed, staff proactively reviewed and updated care plans and risk assessments to ensure they remained responsive and relevant. We saw clear examples of sensitive and forward‑thinking planning, including for a patient with complex physical health needs who required regular hospital appointments and close monitoring. Through collaborative discussions involving the patient, their family and the MDT, the patient’s wishes in the event of a medical emergency were explored in detail. The potential outcomes of resuscitation were discussed openly, recorded clearly and respectfully, and fully reflected the patient’s informed preferences.

Patients we spoke with described feeling positive and confident about their future plans, including discharge. Staff worked closely with patients to build confidence, independence and resilience, agreeing mutually achievable goals to support a smooth and well‑planned transition. We saw how the multidisciplinary team supported patients to develop the practical skills, knowledge and confidence needed for life beyond hospital. Occupational therapy staff provided tailored support with everyday living skills such as meal planning, grocery shopping, cooking and money management. Staff also assessed and supported road safety and community navigation during leave, encouraging patients to become familiar with local transport links and independent travel where appropriate.

The service actively supported patients to engage in education, volunteering and paid work, promoting independence, social inclusion and meaningful occupation. Psychology staff worked individually with patients using therapeutic approaches and coping strategies tailored to their needs, equipping them with skills that would support emotional wellbeing and resilience following discharge.

The service held routine Care Programme Approach (CPA) reviews alongside structured discharge planning meetings, including Section 117 meetings where relevant. All appropriate individuals were invited, including relatives, care coordinators, social workers, discharge teams and staff from future placements. Planning was collaborative and proactive, with visits, overnight stays and graduated periods of leave actively encouraged prior to formal discharge. Staff ensured patients and those important to them were fully involved at every stage. Staff also took time to explore opportunities in patients’ future communities, such as local activities, services and areas of interest, supporting continuity, choice and a positive transition into the next stage of recovery.