Priory Wellbeing Centre-Harley Street

Updated 2 March 2026

We assessed Priory Wellbeing Centre Harley Street from 23 September to 8 October 2025.

Priory Wellbeing Centre Harley Street was registered with CQC in 2017 to deliver the regulated activity: Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The service had a centre manager in post who was going through their registered manager checks. We visited the premises as part of this assessment.

This was a comprehensive assessment, covering all quality statements. We identified breaches of Regulations 9 (Person-centred care), 12 (Safe Care and treatment), and 17 (Good Governance). These breaches related to discharge planning, recording of management of people's physical health, and the oversight and monitoring of treatment effectiveness and safety.

We rated the service as Requires Improvement.

Updated 14 August 2025

We inspected Priory Wellbeing Centre Harley Street between 23 September and 8 October 2025 to update its previous rating.

The service provides mental health care for adults in the community, including therapy and medical treatment. The service offers assessment and treatment from consultant psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists. The service provides treatment for conditions such as anxiety, depression, stress, obsessive compulsive disorder and addictions. A wide range of therapies were on offer including cognitive and dialectical behaviour therapies and analytical psychotherapy.

Our inspection focused on medical treatment provided by consultant psychiatrists because therapy services are outside the scope of the regulations.

The overall rating is Requires Improvement. We identified 5 breaches of regulations (Regulations 9, 12 and 17) relating to person-centred care, safe care and treatment, and good governance.

Our assessment found that whilst some areas were good, there were areas where the service needed to make improvements:

People were not always protected from harm. Physical health risk assessments were sometimes incomplete, and some equipment checks were missed. Lessons from incidents were not consistently embedded to improve practice.

The patient journey was not consistently clear or complete in the records. Initial assessments were sometimes missing from patient records, and staff did not consistently document assessments following referral. Discharge planning and oversight were inconsistent and there were high medical caseloads, which reduced assurance around continuity of care.

Leadership and governance were insufficient to ensure consistently safe, high-quality care. Governance systems and audits were not effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement. The service failed to notify the CQC of safeguarding concerns, despite reporting them to the local authority. Leadership changes were recent, and oversight mechanisms were still being implemented.

However, we also identified areas of good practice.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and ensure safety. Staff reported incidents appropriately and completed training relevant to their roles. The service maintained a robust system for tracking visiting consultants’ credentials, ensuring up to date professional registration and safeguarding checks.

Care was generally good and well organised, and staff treated people with kindness and respect. Staff promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care.

Therapy and medical treatment were based on recognised guidelines.

Staff reported feeling valued and appreciated, and the service promoted staff wellbeing and had low sickness rates.