- Independent mental health service
Woodbourne Priory Hospital
Report from 3 October 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings - Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units
Our view of the service
We assessed the acute wards for adults of working age and intensive care units at Woodbourne Priory Hospital from 28 October 2025- 11 November 2025. This assessment included an on site inspection visit, including an evening visit.
We assessed this service to review the progress made against the requirement notices that were served on the provider following the inspection in January 2023. We found that the service had made improvements and had met most of the actions of the requirement notices.
Woodbourne Priory Hospital was registered with CQC in November 2010 to deliver the regulated activities: Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The service had a controlled drugs accountable officer and a Registered Manager.
We visited the following wards as part of the assessment:
Acer ward, adult acute ward for men and women with 9 beds (6 patients at the time)
Maple ward, adult acute ward for men and women with 16 beds (6 patients at the time)
Elm ward, adult acute ward for men and women with 14 beds (7 patients at the time)
Aspen ward, adult psychiatric intensive care unit for men with 9 beds (3 patients at the time)
We rated the service as good. The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations 10, 12, 15 and 17. The service demonstrated a positive learning culture and staff knew how to safeguard patients from abuse. Environments were safe and clean and staffing was safe and effective. Staff and teams worked well together and were able to evidence how they monitored and improved patient outcomes. The service ensured information was up to date and accessible. The service promoted equity in experience and outcomes. Leaders were capable and compassionate and encouraged staff to speak up. Leaders were committed to improving workforce equity, diversity and inclusion and promoted learning, improvement and innovation.
However, the service did not always treat patients as individuals and staff did not always treat patients with kindness and compassion. The service did not always ensure informal patients’ rights were upheld and that patients had access to meaningful activities to promote their independence. Staff did not always involve patients in planning their care and managing their risks. The provider had not ensured premises were fully accessible. Governance systems had not identified and acted on breaches of regulation and concerns found during this inspection and assessment.
The service was in breach of regulation 9, person centred care.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Mental Health Act
Staff were trained in the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles. The provider had relevant policies and procedures that reflected the most recent guidance that staff had easy access to. Patients had easy access to information about independent mental health advocacy. Staff explained to patients their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand. Staff requested an opinion from a second opinion appointed doctor when necessary. Staff stored copies of patients' detention papers and associated records correctly. However, the service had not displayed a notice to tell informal patients that they could leave the ward freely.
Mental Capacity Act
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, in particular the five statutory principles. The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards. Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history. The service had arrangements to monitor adherence to the Mental Capacity Act.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 9 patients and 2 carers during our inspection and assessment of the acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units. We heard a mix of experiences from patients and carers. All patients said staff responded quickly if they needed urgent help. All patients knew how to raise concerns and 1 gave an example of how staff responded positively. All patients said staff discussed their medicines with them. Most patients said they were able to see their family. Seven patients told us they felt safe on the wards. Five patients said staff gave them information about their care and treatment in a way they understood. Five patients said there were enough staff to meet their needs but both patients spoken with on Aspen ward and 1 on Acer ward said there were not enough staff and their leave was often cancelled. A patient on Elm ward told us there were not enough staff and it could be hard to get out to the garden. Not all patients felt that staff were kind and compassionate, 4 patients said that some staff were moody. Most patients said the food was bad, with some saying it was often cold. Seven patients voiced concerns about activities, either that there weren’t any or if there were they were not great. Five patients told us staff had not involved them in planning their care. Eight told us staff had not involved them in managing their risks. We spoke with 2 carers, 1 said staff had not invited them to reviews of their relative’s care. One carer expressed concerns that staff would ‘mock’ their relative and didn’t meet their relative’s needs.