The Care Quality Commission
  • Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

ADHD 360 Head Office

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Unit 5 and Brunel House, Deepdale Enterprise Park, Deepdale Lane, Nettleham, Lincoln, LN2 2LL (01507) 534181

Provided and run by:
ADHD360 Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

We carried out an announced comprehensive assessment of ADHD360 on 15th September 2026. We also carried out additional offsite activity, with final interviews completed on 29th September 2026. We announced the assessment to ensure we had access to the evidence required and could speak with staff.

The provider was previously inspected 25th August 2023 and was rated as requires improvement overall.

ADHD360 provides specialist services for people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including screening, assessment, diagnosis, treatment and ongoing support. The provider describes its service as UK-wide and provides services for adults, young adults and children.

The service supports privately funded and NHS-funded patients. NHS-funded care is provided through commissioned NHS arrangements and the NHS right to choose (RTC) pathway. The provider worked with NHS organisations and holds contracts to deliver ADHD assessment, diagnosis and treatment services for NHS patients in England.

The service had a registered manager and was registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the regulated activity Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

Care and treatment were predominantly delivered remotely. People completed an online screening process and, where appropriate, attended an assessment by video consultation with an ADHD360 clinician. Where a diagnosis of ADHD was made, a personalised treatment plan was developed. This could include medication, where clinically appropriate, medication optimisation and regular follow-up. ADHD360 stated that their treatment pathway included 12 months of continuous care.

The service had different access arrangements for privately funded and NHS-funded patients. People accessing the service through the NHS RTC pathway required a GP referral. At the time of our review of the provider's published information, RTC referrals were accepted for children aged 8 years and over and adults aged 16 years and over.

Waiting times for NHS RTC referrals varied according to demand, availability, capacity and local Integrated Care Board (ICB) commissioning arrangements. The provider published estimated waiting times and information about specific ICB requirements. At the time of our review, the provider reported that high demand for ADHD services in some areas, together with local NHS commissioning and capacity restrictions, could result in people waiting longer to access the service.

Following diagnosis, people received ongoing treatment and support. This included personalised treatment planning, medication and dose optimisation where appropriate, and regular follow-up. Once treatment was stable and optimised, people could also access optional additional support, including counselling, coaching and peer support groups.

ADHD360 worked alongside NHS partners to provide services to people accessing care through RTC and through other commissioned NHS arrangements. The provider's published information stated that it also undertook contracted NHS activity within specific geographical areas.

Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary

ADHD360 provided independent ADHD assessment, diagnosis and treatment services for children and adults. It did not provide inpatient care or treat people detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. Where people required assessment or treatment under the Act, staff supported them to access appropriate mental health or emergency services.

The provider had a Mental Capacity Act policy that was accessible to staff. Staff understood the principles of the Act and how to apply them to support lawful and person-centred decision-making. This included considering capacity in relation to specific decisions, supporting people to understand relevant information and recording best-interest decisions where required.

Mental Capacity Act training formed part of the provider’s core mandatory training programme. Staff knew how to obtain and record consent during assessment, treatment, medication reviews and information sharing, and how to seek advice from clinical leaders when concerns about a person’s capacity were identified.

People’s experience

We spoke with 4 adults who used the service and gathered feedback by telephone. Overall, people were positive about their experience and described staff as professional, knowledgeable, caring and responsive. People felt respected, listened to and that staff genuinely wanted the best outcomes for them. One person told us, “I really appreciate their knowledge.”

Care was patient-led and tailored to their individual needs. One person described how they and other family members received care from the service and all had different treatment plans and medicines according to their individual needs. They felt sufficient time was taken to identify the most appropriate medication. Another person told us staff did not pressure them to take medication and instead, focused on ensuring treatment was safe and appropriate for them.

People described clinicians as knowledgeable and said they asked relevant questions during assessments. They felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment and reported no concerns about the assessment process. People also described positive experiences of ongoing monitoring, including contact from the team approximately every 4 to 6 weeks, where applicable, and said staff were responsive and accessible when they needed additional support.

People told us the providers patient portal and app worked well, and they had experienced no difficulties using them. They received email reminders when information or monitoring arrangements needed to be updated, which supported their engagement with treatment. ADHD360 provided a patient portal as part of its service and described ongoing support following assessment and diagnosis.

People compared their experiences positively with other services. One person considered the treatment better than their previous NHS experience, while another compared the care favourably with experiences friends had reported with other private providers. One person identified NHS waiting times as a concern because a family member remained on an NHS waiting list; this did not relate to a concern about the care provided by ADHD360.

People accessing the service were at different stages of the care pathway, including awaiting medication or further treatment following assessment. They reported no concerns about the service while waiting. One person was both a staff member and a patient and was awaiting the next stage of their pathway.

People expressed confidence in the service and reported no significant concerns about the care they had received and said they would be happy to recommend the service to friends or family. Their feedback showed that people experienced individualised, patient-led care, knowledgeable and compassionate staff, responsive communication and involvement in decisions about their treatment.

25 August 2023

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection at ADHD360 Head office in response to concerns received from external stakeholders, people using the service and anonymous whistleblowers.

Our key findings were:

  • The provider did not have safe processes and procedures to manage and monitor blank controlled drug prescriptions. We were told on the day of the inspection that more than one person had access to the key safe to obtain keys to a variety of filing cabinets including those containing blank controlled prescriptions in the building. We were not able to determine if any prescriptions were missing.
  • We were told following the inspection that staff who had access to the controlled prescriptions did not have the personal identity number of the prescriber. This was not an adequate control measure, if the scripts were stolen, they could be passed on to someone else externally who knows the personal number for other prescribers working for another service. Controlled drug prescriptions are not dispensed in a particular locality, so can and are transported to different areas of the country.
  • Managers and the primary dispenser undertook audits into prescribing practice; however, we saw several examples where audits had identified where there were discrepancies about the dose, strength or formulation of prescriptions which did not describe management actions with the prescriber. We also saw instances where prescriptions were not signed or dated, this is a legal requirement.
  • We were told not all staff had access to the incident recording and management system, this meant there was potentially a delay in putting measures in place to minimise the impact of the incident.
  • Managers did not always ensure staff treated patients with dignity and respect. We saw an entry in complaints meeting minutes whereby patients who had made more than one complaint were cited as “repeat offenders".
  • Managers provided a monthly update of learning points from complaints and incidents.
  • Managers did not always respect staff; we saw multiple examples whereby staff had been discussed in meeting minutes. Examples included “keeping an eye,” “not working well,” “procrastinates a lot” and “sending defensive and rude emails” all the staff were named.
  • Managers did not have sufficient oversight or recognised the risks posed by the lack of systems to manage blank controlled drug prescriptions.

However

  • We looked at 15 care and treatment records, the provider aimed to mirror the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) best practice guidelines, with nurse specialism and internal training. The provider assessed needs and delivered care in line with relevant and current evidence-based guidance and standards and patients’ immediate and ongoing needs were assessed. Individual care plans recorded where clinicians had prescribed outside British National Formulary limits. The decisions were based on clinical judgements and the rationale was clearly recorded and approved only when reviewed by a senior clinician. We saw environmental modifications to reduce the impact of ADHD symptoms were discussed as well as specific clinical needs and mental and physical wellbeing.

  • We saw multiple examples of additional training for staff including cardiovascular management in ADHD, assessment and treatment of children, teens and adults with ADHD and Asperger’s Syndrome and attachment and trauma. We also saw that several staff had attended international conferences and events.

  • Monthly drop-in sessions for staff looked at themes for detailed discussion for example, managing risk, physical health, and safeguarding.

  • The provider understood the needs of their patients and improved services in response to those needs. The service had employed a patient enablement worker who provided coaching and family support for those with ADHD. Patients also had access to group support, access to work and benefit advice masterclasses.

  • There were processes for providing all staff with the development they needed. This included supervision and career development conversations. All staff received regular bi-annual appraisals in the last year. Staff were supported to meet the requirements of professional revalidation where necessary. Clinical staff and admin staff were considered valued members of the team.