Priory Wellbeing Centre-Harley Street

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

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 this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

The service did not consistently assess and document patient’s mental health assessments following referral.

We reviewed 13 care and treatment records. In five cases, there was no documented evidence that medical staff had completed an initial mental health assessment following referral. For example, one patient’s record lacked any indication of an assessment, making it unclear what treatment had been initiated. This was not in line with the provider’s protocol for consultant documentation standards. This could compromise the continuity and coordination of care.

Staff developed care plans that met the needs identified during assessment. Brief details following each session were recorded, including next steps to be taken in the therapy or treatment sessions. We saw examples of detailed assessment letters sent to the patients’ GP.

Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery oriented. Staff updated care plans when necessary. Patients told us they were aware of their treatment plans. Patients who presented with additional challenges or disorders in their mental health were referred to other appropriate mental health services.

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 provided a range of care and treatment interventions suitable for the patient group. The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The team supported patients in managing mental health and addiction-related challenges.

Staff followed NICE guidelines when providing treatment for attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD). Staff mostly completed baseline checks, including blood tests, blood pressure, height and weight and reviewed each patients’ current medication with their GP before prescribing. Visiting consultants also provided evidence-based treatments for depression, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

The therapy team offered a wide range of interventions tailored to individual needs. This included cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT), psychodynamic therapy and group therapy sessions.

The service had access to a full range specialists, including doctors and clinical psychologists. Patients were referred to their GP or local hospital for the required physical health checks, as these were not carried out on-site. Staff ensured patients could access physical healthcare when needed.

Managers audited treatment records, including those of consultant psychiatrists and therapy staff. The most recent audit, conducted in July 2025, reviewed 12 outpatient records. However, no clear timeframes were set to address identified omissions, which may limit the effectiveness of follow-up actions.

Staff were experienced and qualified, and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the patient group. New staff received a structured induction, including a site orientation, review of policies and procedures, and role-specific training.

Staff received supervision every two months in line with the provider’s policy. A tracking system was in place to monitor supervision dates and prompt follow-up. Sessional therapists and visiting consultants were required to provide evidence of external supervision, and consultant psychiatrists attended peer supervision externally. Staff had recently received mid-year appraisals, which the manager had taken over since July 2025.

Consultant engagement meetings were scheduled to occur every six months to update consultants on policies, procedures and audits. However, no meetings had taken place in the previous 12 months. The manager, who joined in July 2025, confirmed that no records of previous meetings were available and that no formal engagement had occurred during that period. To mitigate this gap, the manager met individually with each consultant to introduce themselves and discuss key service updates. The absence of structured consultant engagement may have limited opportunities for shared learning and oversight.

Formal team meetings were not held regularly. Permanent staff attended monthly clinical governance meetings to discuss incidents, staffing and other governance items. Attendance for these varied and informal meetings were more common due to the small team size.

Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge. Staff received specialist training relevant to their roles, Oliver McGowan training, which equips staff to support people with a learning disability and autistic people.

Managers dealt with poor staff performance promptly and effectively.

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 held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings. Staff attended weekly clinical risk meetings and monthly staff team meetings.

Staff shared information about patients at effective handover meetings within the team. Because the team was small, staff met informally to discuss to cases and incidents.

Information was shared between the team to ensure continuity of care, for example when clinical tasks were delegated or when people were referred internally. For example, the medical team met with therapy staff and vice versa when they referred a patient for therapy or medical input.

The teams had effective working relationships with teams outside the organisation. Staff informed GPs about patients care such as medicines prescribed and general health.

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.

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives, for example, through participation in smoking cessation schemes, healthy eating advice, managing cardiovascular risks, screening for cancer, and dealing with issues relating to substance misuse. Patients described receiving helpful advice on exercise and healthy living, which supported their overall wellbeing.

The service routinely collected patient outcomes to help improve their treatment.

Staff used recognised rating scales including the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) rating scales to assess the record and severity of symptoms and treatment outcomes for patients receiving psychological therapies.

During the assessment, the medical director confirmed that plans were in place to implement a system for collating patient outcomes to analyse the results.

Staff used technology to support patients effectively including online access to self-help tools.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. Staff understood mental capacity and were aware of how substance misuse can affect capacity. Staff worked under the principle that capacity is always assumed and where they queried a patients’ capacity this was discussed as a team.

Staff obtained consent during admission, including forms to share information. Patients receiving repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) signed a separate consent form, in line with best practice for treatment with specific risks.

For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately.