3 The Beeches

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. We spoke with 4 patients or their relatives. All the people we spoke with were very positive about their experience of the service. They found staff very knowledgeable, professional and supportive. They felt that staff focused on them and treated them as an adult involved in their care. They felt that staff listened to them and were making a ‘genuine’ diagnosis, and not just because they had been paid for an assessment.

People told us they found the whole process from assessment to diagnosis to treatment positive. Everything was clearly explained and they were provided with a lot of information. People told us there had been positive benefits after they had received their diagnosis, and following the support and treatment they had received. 

Patients and their families were asked for feedback throughout their patient journey. Patients could provide feedback to the service at any time, but they were asked directly at specific times throughout their treatment. The feedback process was implemented in July 2023 and there had been 176 responses to date in February 2026. Of these 158 were compliments, and 18 were concerns. Patients were asked to rate the service out of 5 stars, with 5 being the best rating. 83% of patients rated the service as 5 stars, with only 3% rating the service at 1 or 2 stars. 45% of patients included service improvement suggestions which included follow-up after reviews, better communication, and useability improvements to the assessment forms. Managers told us they had made changes in response to this feedback but acknowledged that this was not documented.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. As part of the assessment and treatment process people had access to a ‘course’ which provided information about ADHD, the assessment process, and the treatment available.  

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. All staff had completed training on how to keep patients' information safe.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards clients without fear of the consequences. 

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not provide specific information for children and young people. However, 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.

Patients were asked about their cultural, social and religious needs as part of their assessment.

The service made adjustments for disabled patients. Patients were seen on the ground and top floor of a 3-storey building, and there was no lift. However, there was flat access to the ground floor, which included a disabled toilet. Many appointments were carried out online, so patients did not need to visit the building. 

Staff ensured that patients had access to information about the service they provided for assessment, treatment and support. This was mostly online, but patients were also provided with written material. The information provided was in a form accessible to the patient group. Staff told us they tried to make reports as clear as possible for the patient. However, there was no specific information that was targeted at children or young-people, which would support them in their understanding of the assessment process, and their diagnosis and treatment.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers. Staff told us they access interpreters for patients who did not speak English, and signers for deaf people. Staff could also access services to translate written information. They told us that these services were available but were not often needed. 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Most patients, or their parents, privately funded their assessment and treatment, so had to actively choose to use the service. Patients, or their parents, could access general information on the provider’s website about ADHD and the assessment process, and in the event of a positive diagnosis what the support and treatment options were. Patients could complete a free screening tool which gave an indication as to whether a further assessment was necessary. At this stage, patients could contact the service for more information or book an assessment directly. The price of each type of assessment, the information required (such as health information from their GP) and indicative costs for future treatment were available on the website. 

Information about the assessment, treatment and costs was available online. If patients received a positive diagnosis, they were provided with more detailed information about the treatment options available. Patients decided whether they wished to continue with the provider, go elsewhere for treatment, or take other or no further action.

The service encouraged shared care agreements with GPs, where patients could have their medicines prescribed by their GP once they were stabilised. This was not always possible and was dependent on individual GPs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as diversion (giving prescribed medicines to another person) and potential safeguarding concerns. If a patient was distressed, staff would work with them and could refer or signpost them to a suitable service. 

Patients were seen in the main building, but most patient interactions were virtual so people would be in their own homes. In the event of a minor injury at the service, there was a trained first aider onsite and usually a nurse or a doctor available. This was not an emergency service, so in the unlikely event of a medical emergency staff would call 999. 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued, and that they were able to raise concerns. Staff felt supported with their own health needs, such as during periods of sickness. The service monitored sickness and absence, and there were no significant trends. 

The provider had a lone working policy, but there was no lone working in the service. Only 3 clinical staff saw patients face to face in the building. Staff often worked virtually from home, and when they were on the provider’s premises there were always at least 2 members of staff in the building. Staff could easily communicate with one another and were aware of when appointments were due to start and finish. 

Staff could give their views and provide feedback to the service. Managers had carried out staff surveys following events and had an awayday. Staff also provided feedback through supervision. The provider gave staff the option of providing anonymous feedback through an external website, but there had never been any comments left there.