Psychiatric And Psychological Consultant Services Limited

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

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, and learning. Leaders were knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities.

Psychologists and psychiatrists, we spoke with indicated that there could be more multidisciplinary working, and that they largely worked separately. Staff could access relevant policies and procedures, but at the time of the inspection a significant number of policies were in the process of being amended and not yet complete.

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 clear vision and set of values which emphasised providing a prompt, transparent, and high quality out-patient mental health service. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in their work.

Staff told us they could raise concerns and were encouraged to do so. They had confidence that these would be addressed. Peer mentoring was provided monthly for psychologists, and professional development groups and training were provided for doctors quarterly.

The service had a realistic strategy and supporting business plan to ensuring there were appropriately qualified staff to rapidly respond to requests for assessment and treatment. The service monitored progress in terms of waiting times for assessment and treatment.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued, although some felt that financial renumeration was not sufficient. The provider was aware of and had systems to ensure compliance with the requirements of the duty of candour.

Staff told us that there were quarterly professional development meetings and other opportunities for peer discussion. Most staff had received equality and diversity training and told us they felt the service promoted equalities issues.

The service had leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

Leadership development opportunities were available for staff, and staff we spoke with described their progression within the organisation.

There was a new medical director in place for the service, with previous medical directors remaining within the organisation. They were aware of the need to further develop the culture and learning opportunities within the service. They had recruited a medicines specialist and the service also had a director of psychology. Staff told us that the leaders of the service were approachable and that they listened to staff and patient views to develop and improve the service. Future plans included consideration of establishing a foundation offering lower cost mental health care.

Leaders were aware of risks to the organisation, including information breaches and cyber-attacks, dishonesty, liability claims, brand and reputation. The service had contingency plans in the event of incidents affecting the running of the service and the service had carried out GAP analysis mapping. There was a business continuity plan in the event of an energy supply outage.

The service fostered a positive culture where people said they felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff did not report any cases of bullying or harassment and told us that they felt supported by their colleagues. Staff knew how to use the whistle blowing process.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Policies and procedures to promote diversity and equality were in place.

Staff did not express any concerns about workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. However, managers noted that the diversity of psychologists working for the service, was an area for improvement.

During the Covid pandemic, the service had adapted to provide remote consultations, and this became the overall model for the business thereafter.

There were some gaps in training for the team, including in safeguarding training for clinicians and administrators, with only 59% of clinicians appropriately trained in safeguarding children. Information governance training was also at 59% and complaints training at 32%.

Clinicians spoke highly of the support provided by the corporate services team; however, some were not satisfied with the renumeration provided by the service at the time of the inspection. Service managers were aware of this issue, and this had led to some turnover of staff at the service. They were considering possible options for the future and were also considering establishing a foundation to provide lower cost care for patients unable to afford the current rates.

Psychologists and psychiatrists, we spoke with indicated that there could be more multidisciplinary working, and that they largely worked separately.

Staff could access relevant policies and procedures, but at the time of the inspection a significant number of policies were in the process of being amended, and were therefore not yet up to date. There were weekly hub meetings for clinic staff, and regular professional development sessions held for clinicians, including recent meetings about Neurodiversity and Medicines Management.

The service had a new medical director in post and was in the process of registering a new manager with the CQC. A medicines specialist had also been appointed for the service.

Leaders had oversight of safety alerts, incidents, and complaints and acted to improve the service in relation to any areas for improvement identified. They had put in place a system of audits including care records and risk assessments, prescribing and referral decisions. There were robust arrangements in line with data security standards for the integrity and confidentiality of patient identifiable data, records and data management systems.

There was a framework for the discussion of important information such as learning from incidents, audits and alerts and staff met regularly at business team meetings to discuss these. The Clinical Advisory Committee met regularly and consisted of representatives of each professional body. Board meetings looked at the service’s compliance across a comprehensive range of markers.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with the NHS, so services worked seamlessly for people. Where appropriate, and with the consent of patients, they shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The service encouraged and heard views and concerns from patients and staff and acted on them to shape services and culture. Patients were sent questionnaires to complete and results were shared across the team.

The service embraced continuous learning, innovation and improvement, but was not directly involved in any research work. Staff found peer review meetings and continual professional development meetings helpful in improving their skills and knowledge.