ADHD 360 Head Office

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive - this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At this assessment we rated the service as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service organised care around people’s needs and circumstances. Different access arrangements applied to privately funded and NHS-funded patients. Private patients could access the service directly, while people using the NHS Right to Choose pathway required a GP referral.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were placed at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment. They described the service as personalised, supportive and responsive and said staff clearly explained assessment outcomes, treatment options and next steps. People were involved in developing their treatment plans and reviewing their progress.

Assessments considered people’s medical history, mood, sleep, physical health, daily circumstances and treatment goals. Staff used this information to develop personalised care plans that reflected individual needs, preferences and risks. The providers pre-assessment checks covered medical history, mood, sleep and basic health information, followed by a personalised treatment plan and regular follow-ups.

Staff discussed available treatment options with people. This included medication where clinically appropriate, lifestyle changes and additional non-medication support. Once medication and dosage were stable, people could also access optional counselling, coaching, peer-support groups and webinars.

Staff took time to understand how ADHD affected each person’s daily life, relationships, education or employment and wider wellbeing. Care reflected people’s individual goals and circumstances. Some people chose to manage their symptoms using existing coping strategies and lifestyle changes rather than begin medication. Staff respected these decisions, and people could return to discuss treatment if their needs or preferences changed.

Staff adapted their communication to support people’s understanding and participation during assessments and reviews. Where appropriate and with the person’s agreement, family members, GPs and other relevant professionals contributed information to assessment and care planning. ADHD 360 described its approach as patient-led and recognised that ADHD can affect individuals, families and relationships.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff supported continuity of care through ongoing specialist follow-up and, where agreed, shared-care arrangements with people’s GPs. People told us they did not see different clinicians unnecessarily, which helped staff understand their treatment history and individual needs.

Following diagnosis, people could choose whether to proceed with treatment. Those who did not begin treatment immediately could return to the service when they were ready. Staff members confirmed that treatment could be added after an assessment and that people receiving treatment had regular clinical reviews and prescription support.

Staff followed up people who did not attend reviews or collect prescriptions. This included sending letters, checking whether people wished to continue treatment and providing information about how to re-engage with the service.

Care records contained discharge plans and onward-care arrangements. Where medication had reached an effective and optimal dose, staff considered whether shared care with the person’s GP was appropriate. Information was shared with consent to support safe prescribing and continuity of treatment.

Staff communicated with GPs and other professionals to coordinate care. This included sharing assessment outcomes, treatment information and prescribing arrangements. Where people’s presentation or level of risk changed, staff escalated concerns and arranged referral or transfer to specialist mental health services where appropriate.

The provider also worked with NHS organisations through RTC and other commissioned arrangements, supporting integration with wider NHS services.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff provided people with clear information about their assessment, diagnosis, treatment and what to expect at each stage of the care pathway. Information was available through booking emails, clinical appointments, telephone contact, information leaflets, fact sheets, the patient portal and the provider’s website. Staff responded to queries and explained treatment options, medication reviews, prescriptions, shared-care arrangements and available support.

People received written information following discussions with clinicians. This included assessment outcomes, treatment plans and information shared with their GP, where appropriate

The provider’s website included information for people, families and carers, including guidance about assessment and treatment, the patient journey, NHS RTC, urgent help, safeguarding and how to raise a complaint. It also provided written and video resources, frequently asked questions and information for GPs.

Staff considered people’s communication needs and could provide information in accessible formats, including easy-read materials and other languages. Interpretation and sign-language support could be arranged where required.

Staff had governance arrangements to protect confidential information and support appropriate information sharing. These included policies covering information-governance breaches, data protection, cyber resilience and confidentiality.

Staff completed information-governance and cyber-security training and understood their responsibilities for maintaining confidentiality. Electronic care records were held securely, with access controls including two-factor authentication. Consent to assessment, treatment and information sharing was documented in the records we reviewed.

Care plans, assessment reports and other relevant clinical information were shared with people and, with consent, their GPs or other professionals where this supported safe and coordinated care.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment. People said their views and concerns were taken seriously and that they contributed to care planning and treatment reviews. Feedback described improvements in wellbeing, relationships, employment and daily living.

Staff collected feedback through satisfaction surveys, complaints, compliments, online reviews, the patient portal and direct contact with the patient experience team. Monthly reports were shared with clinical and operational teams to identify themes and areas for improvement. People could also contact the patient advice and liaison service (PALS) for support with concerns, appointments, prescriptions and administrative matters.

Formal complaints were managed by the patient experience team with input from the relevant clinical or operational leads. Complaints were acknowledged within 2 working days, with a response usually expected within 28 working days. People dissatisfied with the initial response could request a stage 2 review by a member of the team who had not been involved in the original investigation.

Leaders held regular trends and themes: patient voice meetings. These meetings considered recurring themes identified through complaints and other feedback. Staff used this information to implement, and review improved or alternative ways of working.

Between June and August 2026, the provider recorded 378 complaints. At the reporting date, 210 were closed, 103 remained open, 51 were at stage 1 and 14 had progressed to stage 2. Recurring concerns included prescription delays and errors, communication, discharge decisions, appointment management and dissatisfaction with care. Some complaints described gaps in medication or treatment.

People could request a particular clinician where possible or ask to change clinician to better meet their needs. Staff said complaints were managed professionally and without judgement, and that people were not treated differently because they raised concerns.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service supported access through private, NHS RTC and other commissioned NHS pathways. Private patients could access the service directly, while people using the RTC pathway required a clinically appropriate GP referral. Eligibility, funding requirements and waiting times for NHS-funded care varied according to local integrated care board arrangements and available capacity.

ADHD360 accepted referrals from across England and delivered care predominantly remotely, which supported access for people living in different geographical areas. Staff made reasonable adjustments to meet people’s communication, accessibility and individual needs.

Leaders described a pathway from referral to discharge that included onboarding, ADHD assessment, diagnosis where appropriate, medication titration, stabilisation, consideration of shared care with the person’s GP and longer-term review arrangements. This was consistent with the provider’s published pathway, which included assessment, treatment planning, regular reviews and ongoing support.

Once treatment was clinically stable, staff contacted the person’s GP to discuss shared care and ongoing prescribing. With the person’s consent, staff shared relevant clinical notes, medication and monitoring information, and physical health observations. Where a GP declined shared care, dedicated teams continued to provide prescriptions and clinical reviews to maintain access and continuity.

Leaders also described a dedicated clinical response team for people whose treatment was stable, but who did not have an allocated clinician. Staff had experience in managing complex and high-volume caseloads, including previous work in crisis services. Staff responded to clinical queries, reviewed emerging concerns and arranged further clinical input where required.

ADHD and autism services were provided through separate pathways. People requiring an autism assessment could be directed to the related autism service, while those requiring specialist psychiatric or crisis support were referred or signposted to appropriate external services.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff worked to reduce inequalities in people’s experiences and outcomes by adapting care to their individual needs, circumstances and presentation. People described improvements in confidence, concentration, working memory, relationships and functioning at work, education and home.

Assessments considered how ADHD affected each person’s daily life, relationships, education, employment and emotional wellbeing. This informed diagnosis and personalised treatment planning. Staff and leaders described patient-led care for adults, young adults, children and teenagers, with personalised treatment plans and regular follow-up.

Staff recognised that ADHD could present differently between people and across different stages of life. The provider’s women’s network included information about ADHD in women, including masking, emotional wellbeing, hormonal changes, relationships, parenting and workplace challenges. This supported greater awareness of experiences that may otherwise be overlooked or misunderstood.

Where medication was clinically appropriate and chosen by the person, staff monitored its effectiveness and adjusted treatment according to the person’s response, physical health, lifestyle and preferences. People could also access optional non-medication support, including individual coaching, family support and group sessions. These aimed to help people understand ADHD and develop practical strategies for managing its impact on daily life.

People, families and carers could access written and video resources about ADHD, treatment and support through the provider’s website. The resource library included treatment advice, interviews, webinars and information designed for different groups and stages of the ADHD pathway.

Staff completed equality, diversity and human rights training. They considered people’s cultural, religious, communication and accessibility needs and made reasonable adjustments where required. The service promoted an inclusive culture in which people and their families could share their views and participate in decisions about care.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff involved people in planning their future care and treatment. Records contained personalised treatment plans that reflected people’s needs, preferences and goals, including whether to proceed with medication, arrangements for regular review and access to additional support. People understood the plans, agreed with staff and felt involved in decisions.

Staff provided information to help people understand their options and future arrangements, including assessment and treatment, prescriptions, annual reviews and what would happen if shared care was declined. People who did not wish to begin treatment immediately could return to discuss treatment when they were ready.

Where people had complex or changing needs, staff worked with GPs and other relevant services to coordinate care. With the person’s consent, staff shared clinical, prescribing and monitoring information to support continuity. The provider also worked with NHS organisations through RTC and commissioned NHS arrangements.

Where changes in NHS commissioning or funding affected access, staff informed people about the impact on their care and available options. These could include remaining on the waiting list, seeking support from NHS services or considering alternative care arrangements. People were advised to contact their GP or NHS 111 if their health deteriorated while waiting.