Priory Wellbeing Centre-Harley Street

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

Staff delivered person-centred care by anticipating patients’ needs and tailoring treatment to individual circumstances.

Patients’ needs, views, wishes and comfort were a priority and staff quickly anticipated these to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress. One patient described that the doctor referred them to a specialist service for a co-occurring condition, which helped them feel their needs were being fully met.

Another patient told us their doctor treated both aspects of their dual diagnosis, which made care more coordinated and reduced the need to see multiple professionals.

A third patient stated that the doctor saw them as an individual and was ‘holistic’. The doctor signposted them to the extra resources for mindfulness, yoga and meditation to help support them with their mental health.

The service understood 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 that patients had access to education and work opportunities. Some patients accessed the service through their employer. We saw a record where staff had helped a patient to access education opportunities. Another patient described how staff supported them with therapy sessions

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Records showed where staff had liaised with relatives to help support patients with their treatment like supporting them to get their prescriptions.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community.

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

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. All staff had completed training on information governance.

The service ensured people could raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They tried to involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The service received two complaints in the last six months. One complaint outcome was delayed due to a change in management. The current manager investigated both complaints and upheld them. Patients received feedback following the investigations.

The complaints related to the treatment pathway and poor communication with staff. The manager took action to address the concerns raised.

The service also received positive feedback through its website. In September, patients praised both therapy and administrative staff. This feedback was included in the September 2025 governance report.

The manager cascaded a complaints learning bulletin to all staff to ensure staff could see what had happened and the improvements made after a complaint.

The service made efforts to ensure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed, but discharge planning and oversight were inconsistent, creating a risk of delays in treatment.

Patients had some flexibility and choice in the appointment times available. Staff worked hard to avoid cancellations and, when necessary, explained the reason and offered a prompt appointment. The service was introducing a Saturday clinic to increase accessibility. Appointments generally ran on time, and staff kept patients informed of any delays.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for people with mobility needs. For example, wheelchair users could access the building using lifts.

However, discharge planning was inconsistent. In 4 out of the 13 patient records reviewed, there was either no discharge letter, or it was unclear whether the patient had been formally discharged. In some cases, patients remained on the consultants’ caseload despite a discharge letter being sent to the GP. Visiting consultants had high caseloads – one had 1,149 patients, another 960 and a third 509. It was not clear whether these numbers accurately reflected the current caseloads. The service did not monitor patient throughput effectively, creating a risk that patients might not receive timely and coordinated care.

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 people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

The provider ensured their policies and procedures did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the potential issues facing vulnerable groups such as LGBTQ+ and ethnic minorities. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Where appropriate, staff supported patients to consider longer term decision about their care, treatment and discharge. Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s views and needs.

Staff collaborated with other specialist healthcare professionals, such as psychiatric inpatient hospitals, primary care and secondary care.