Psychiatric And Psychological Consultant Services Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Patients and carers we spoke with were very positive about their experience of the service. They described staff as caring, friendly, and flexible, and said they felt listened to in sessions. They said it was easy to get appointments, and that they ran on time, with clinicians giving time to all of their concerns, and explaining any options available.

Patients said they were involved in decisions about their care, and that staff were swift to address any urgent concerns. One patient suggested that the service could do better at matching patients with clinicians, providing more information about each clinician available.

The service supported staff individual needs, and were considering ways of improving team communication and wellbeing.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The service consistently treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of patients’ individual needs.

Patients and carers we spoke with were very positive about their experience of the service. They described staff as caring and friendly, very flexible, and said they felt listened to in sessions. They said it was easy to get appointments, and that they ran on time, with clinicians giving time to all of their concerns, and explaining any options available. One patient noted that when they explained that they did not connect with a particular practitioner, the service was very accommodating in arranging an appointment with an alternative clinician.

Patients said they were involved in decisions about their care, and that staff were swift to address any urgent concerns. One patient said that if it had not been for their clinician, they did not know how they would have made it through the last few years.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy, with relevant information kept securely, and only those staff directly involved in the care pathway given access.

Applications could be made by clinicians if patients ran out of funds or insurance cover, for example by being made redundant or falling on hard times, to continue treatment and care.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff understood patients’ personal, cultural, social and religious needs. They displayed an understanding and non-judgmental attitude to all patients.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients said staff provided good, clear information about the service, and gave them options about any treatments. Those having medicines prescribed said staff gave them clear information about side effects and helpful information to inform their choice of medication.

The service gave patients timely support and information. The service gave patients written

information about the costs of the service, how to make and cancel appointments and how to make a complaint.

Patients had enough time during consultations to make an informed decision about the choice of treatment available to them. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment. Patients told us that staff asked them about any risks to their safety and worked collaboratively to plan their care and treatment.

The service asked patients to give feedback on the quality of care. The provider sent out questionnaires to patients. We looked at the results of 14 recent surveys which largely provided positive feedback about the service. There were 2 surveys that raised concerns about the communication within the service, and the computerised appointment system.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Patients could be seen relatively promptly when needing support with no waiting list in place. The service aimed to respond very quickly to new referrals and could offer appointments within 48 hours of referral and then immediately plan and deliver treatment. Patients told us that waiting times, delays and cancellations were minimal and they could usually

arrange appointments for when it suited them.

However, having become a remote service, if a patient had an immediate need for urgent support, staff would redirect them to local services that could provide this support. Referrals and transfers to other services were undertaken in a timely way. For example, consultant psychiatrists could refer patients to a nearby private mental health hospital if needed.

The service promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff reported being supported by their colleagues and managers within the service, although some felt there could be more cross-disciplinary working and meetings to discuss complex patients. In consultation with the staff team, the service was in the process of considering wellbeing options for members of the team. This included trialling and launching an internal App for clinicians and staff to improve wellness.

Peer mentoring was provided monthly for psychologists, and professional development groups and training were provided for doctors quarterly.