Priory Wellbeing Centre-Harley Street

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of regulation for governance at the service.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. However, the recent change in the senior leadership of the service was still embedding.

Staff understood and applied the provider’s vision and values in their daily work. They described how they worked together to ensure patients could access the treatment they needed.

The senior leadership team had effectively communicated these values to frontline staff. Recently, the leadership structure across the wellbeing centres changed. This included the appointment of a new centre manager, and the transfer of senior management responsibilities to the provider’s local inpatient hospital. As this new structure had only been implemented in June 2025, processes and oversight mechanisms were still being embedded.

Staff described how they worked to deliver high-quality care while managing resources effectively. The medical director outlined plans to improve prescription oversight and introduce a dashboard to monitor visiting consultants’ capacity, patient flow and workload. This new prescription system is scheduled to launch in November 2025, aiming to enhance safety and streamline clinical processes.

The service had inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. The centre manager had worked in the care sector for several years before joining the service and had managed other wellbeing centres. The hospital director was a psychologist and the director of the provider’s local inpatient hospital. The deputy manager that had been newly appointed had worked at the provider’s inpatient hospital.

Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed. They could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide high quality care.

Leaders were visible in the service and approachable for patients and staff.

Leadership development opportunities were available, including opportunities for staff

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They said they could raise any concerns without fear. Because the team was small, staff felt able to directly approach the manager with any issues or concerns they had.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy which staff could refer to. The service did not have a Speak Up champion, but the manager hoped they would appoint someone to the role in the future.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Staff reported that the provider promoted equality and diversity in their day-to-day work.

Staff could apply to work flexibly, for example, flexible working agreements to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues. Staff could work remotely to attend appointments. The centre manager put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role.

The provider undertakes equality monitoring of staff within the service to ensure it is diverse in its make-up and representative of the patient group. The service did not have equality and diversity champions within the service. The managers said it was something they were thinking of implementing.

The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

There was no clear plan for what should be discussed in team meetings. Important topics, like learning from incidents and complaints, were not always shared. Monthly clinical governance meetings were meant to happen, but these were irregular after a change in management. Weekly risk and case management meetings took place, but they did not include lessons learned from incidents or complaints.

Audits were minimal. For example, the centre manager said monthly audits of psychiatry correspondence were meant to be completed, but there was only one audit from July 2025. That audit looked at 12 consultant records and found missing documentation in two cases. Although actions were suggested, there were no deadlines or named staff to complete them. This meant audits did not provide enough assurance and were not acted on.

Prescriptions audits were not done. Paper prescriptions were locked in a safe and logged. But staff did not check how electronic prescriptions were used, so they could not monitor this properly.

The risk register was in place and included issues like recruitment and training compliance. However, it did not match the governance problems we found, such as gaps in medical documentation and lack of prescription oversight.

The centre manager lacked access to key management information, including service performance metrics, staffing data, and patient care indicators. While a dashboard was available to monitor therapy staff workload – such as caseloads and training compliance – there was no system to track visiting consultants’ caseloads. The provider acknowledged this gap and confirmed that a tracking tool for medical pathways was in development.

In contrast, staff had reliable access to essential equipment and IT systems. The infrastructure, including telephony and digital platforms, functioned effectively. Information governance processes were in place to maintain patient confidentiality.

The service had plans for emergencies – for example, adverse weather or a flu outbreak.

The service did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The managers did not engage with all external stakeholders. The service failed to notify the CQC of two safeguarding concerns, that were reported to the local authority. This failure to notify the CQC may have impacted regulatory oversight and delayed appropriate follow-up actions. Since the inspection the provider has retrospectively notified the CQC of these incidents and other reportable incidents.

Patients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team and commissioners to give feedback.

Staff were not participating in any quality improvement methods at the time of the assessment.