ADHD 360 Head Office

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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At this assessment we rated this key question good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated people with compassion and kindness. People felt listened to, respected and supported. Staff involved people and their families in care planning and risk assessment where appropriate and provided information to support informed decisions about care and treatment.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People using the service described staff as professional, responsive and supportive and said they felt listened to and involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

People said clinicians explained assessment outcomes, diagnoses, treatment options and next steps clearly. They had opportunities to ask questions during assessments and reviews and did not feel rushed. Records showed staff provided information and guidance about prescriptions, medication reviews and communication with GPs and pharmacies.

Staff created a supportive environment in which people felt able to discuss their symptoms, daily challenges and wider wellbeing. ADHD360’s care pathway followed regular follow-up appointments and access to clinical support during treatment. The service also offered a contact number for people seeking information about its services.

People could access or be directed to additional support, including counselling, coaching and peer-support groups, once their treatment was stable. Staff also signposted people to external services where their needs could not be met by the provider.

We reviewed feedback from families of people using the service. They described clinicians as professional, supportive and responsive. Families reported that people felt listened to and involved in their care, and gave examples of improved wellbeing, confidence and engagement in work and daily life. People also told us they were asked for feedback and knew how to raise concerns.

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 provided care and treatment that reflected people’s individual needs, circumstances, preferences and choices. Personalised treatment plans included agreed medication, dosage adjustments, lifestyle advice and arrangements for ongoing monitoring and review.

People received consistent support from clinicians who understood their needs and treatment history. Staff considered relevant personal, cultural and religious needs when planning care. This included providing specific advice to people fasting during Ramadan so medicines could be taken safely and treatment adjusted where clinically appropriate.

People and their families could access information about assessment, treatment and support through appointments, by telephone, through the patient portal and on the provider’s website. ADHD360 also provided guidance, frequently asked questions and other resources to help people understand the assessment and treatment pathway and make informed choices.

Staff explained treatment options and responded to people’s questions. Information could be adapted to meet individual communication needs, including arranging interpreters, information in other languages and sign-language support where required.

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

Staff supported people to make informed choices and maintain control over their care and treatment. They explained available options, including medication, lifestyle changes and non-medication support, and respected people’s decisions about whether to proceed.

Following diagnosis, staff worked with people to develop personalised treatment plans. Where medication was chosen, clinicians considered the person’s health, lifestyle, treatment goals and preferences when recommending a medicine and adjusting the dose. Staff recognised that there was no single approach to ADHD medication and that treatment should reflect each person’s circumstances and desired outcomes. People told us that staff did not pressure them to make decisions following diagnosis. They said they were given the information and time needed to consider their options and decide what was right for them.

People were not required to begin medication titration following diagnosis and could take time to consider their options. Those who chose medication received regular reviews and were involved in decisions about adjustments to their treatment. Once an effective and well-tolerated dose had been established, people could discuss longer-term prescribing arrangements, including shared care with their GP.

People could also choose additional non-medication support, including counselling, coaching, peer-support groups and webinars. These were optional and could be accessed according to people’s individual needs and preferences.

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 responded to changes in people’s needs and adapted care and treatment accordingly. Care plans considered people’s mental health, physical health and wider wellbeing and were reviewed and updated when their presentation, risks or treatment needs changed.

People received information about what to do if their health or wellbeing deteriorated. This included contacting their GP or NHS 111 for urgent advice and calling 999 or attending an accident and emergency department where there was an immediate risk of harm. Staff made clear that it did not provide an emergency or crisis service and directed people to appropriate out of hours support resources if required.

Staff maintained regular contact with people during treatment and used clinical reviews and digital systems to monitor their wellbeing, response to medication and emerging risks. Concerns were escalated through established clinical and safeguarding pathways.

Staff responded promptly to queries and kept them informed about changes affecting their care. One person told, “Staff kept me informed of any changes. When the pharmacy used by the service changed, I was informed immediately.” People could also contact the service by telephone, use its online resources and patient portal, or speak with an adviser during usual business hours.

Where appropriate, and with the person’s consent, staff involved families in discussions about changes in presentation, risk and treatment. Reviews considered physical health, emotional wellbeing, behavioural changes and the impact of treatment. Monitoring and follow-up arrangements were adjusted where people’s needs changed.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Service leaders promoted staff wellbeing and provided a supportive and inclusive working environment. We spoke with 13 staff during our onsite assessment and received email feedback from a further 16 staff. Feedback was consistently positive, with staff describing a culture where they felt respected, valued and supported. Staff spoke positively about teamwork, leadership and opportunities to develop their careers.

Managers supported staff through weekly wellbeing check-ins, flexible working, reasonable adjustments and additional equipment for remote working where required. Staff were encouraged to take appropriate breaks and worked collaboratively to manage workloads. Support was available following difficult interactions with people. Staff could also access bookable wellbeing and learning sessions, a 24-hour employee assistance programme and peer support through a wellbeing ambassador forum. Activities focused on areas including mental health, inclusion, time management and professional development, with feedback used to evaluate their impact.

Leaders strengthened its mental health and wellbeing support through mental health first aid training and trauma risk management (TRiM) arrangements for staff affected by potentially traumatic workplace experiences. Clinicians also had access to “stop the clock days”, which provided protected time for professional development and managing outstanding work.

Staff had access to statutory sick pay, although enhanced occupational sick pay had not been introduced. Service leaders listened to staff feedback and had committed to reviewing this following implementation of its new HR system and a review of absence management processes. Wider benefits were being strengthened and included health and wellbeing support, access to a virtual GP, retail and gym discounts and salary sacrifice schemes. Family-friendly benefits included enhanced adoption, shared parental and neonatal arrangements, 2 weeks' paternity leave at full pay and up to 5 days' paid fertility leave.

Staff received regular supervision, appraisal and multidisciplinary team support, which provided opportunities for reflection, clinical discussion and shared learning. New staff completed a structured 4-week induction, supported by role-specific training, competency assessments and ongoing development. Staff also had access to shadowing and structured clinical development through the ADHD360 training academy. Further learning opportunities were being developed during 2026, including leadership development for managers.

Managers promoted an inclusive workplace and had achieved Bronze NeuroKind accreditation, with an improvement plan in place. A neurodiversity employee resource Group had also been established to further develop neuroinclusive support for staff.

Staff were encouraged to contribute to service development. Quarterly colleague and manager forums provided opportunities to raise concerns and influence improvements in areas such as wellbeing, benefits, communication and organisational culture. Project “Bright Ideas” provided an additional route for staff to suggest improvements for consideration by senior leaders. Staff feedback had also contributed to improvements in employee benefits and the development of recognition and long-service arrangements.

Systems were in place to protect the confidentiality of staff who accessed the provider's clinical services, including restricting access to sensitive information where appropriate.