ADHD 360 Head Office

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

Well led- This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At this assessment we have given the rating Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was led with a clear focus on delivering safe, high-quality care. Leaders were visible and approachable, and staff felt supported, valued and able to contribute to service development. Governance systems, including audits, incident reporting, risk management, complaints monitoring and performance reviews, enabled leaders to oversee quality and safety. Information from audits, incidents, complaints and patient feedback was used to identify themes, share learning and drive improvements. Feedback was actively sought through surveys, complaints, compliments and online reviews, with the Patient Experience Team supporting oversight and improvement activity. Staff described a positive, open culture, felt listened to and confident raising concerns.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Leaders promoted a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The service had a shared vision and culture focused on providing safe, personalised and patient-led ADHD care. Staff understood the organisation’s values and how their roles contributed to people’s experiences and outcomes. The providers values included excellence, passion, integrity, caring (EPIC)which were reflected in the submitted evidence provided.

Staff confirmed that people received the same standards of care and support across all teams and service pathways. They recognised that people were at different stages of assessment and treatment and required different levels of support. This reflected the provider’s commitment to personalised treatment, continued support and consistent standards of care.

Staff spoke positively about working for the service and said they enjoyed coming to work. They described a supportive and inclusive culture that promoted staff wellbeing. Staff felt respected and valued and said leaders were approachable and encouraged them to share ideas, raise concerns and contribute to improvements.

Leaders communicated the service’s direction through regular staff engagement and monthly team meetings. Meetings included discussions about workloads, operational issues, service developments and future plans. Records showed staff contributed to discussions and were involved in identifying and implementing improvements.

Service leaders gathered staff feedback through wellbeing and clinician pulse surveys. Staff valued supportive teams, approachable managers, flexible working and the service’s shared purpose. However, recurring concerns included workload, communication, limited protected time and insufficient involvement in organisational change.

Leaders at all levels were inclusive and 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. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Clinicians were registered with the relevant professional regulators, including the nursing midwifery council (NMC), general medical council (GMC) and general pharmaceutical council (GPhC). Leaders described their clinicians as qualified clinical professionals trained in advanced ADHD assessment, management and treatment.

Clinical development was supported through the ADHD360 Academy. Service leaders described a CPD-accredited programme covering advanced assessment, ADHD medicines, personalised treatment planning and clinical risk management. Training incorporated clinical expertise, current research and lived experience to develop clinicians’ knowledge, skills and confidence.

Leaders were visible, approachable and accessible. Staff said they could contact leaders without barriers, felt supported in their roles and were encouraged to develop professionally. Regular supervision, annual appraisals and informal support enabled leaders to maintain oversight of care delivery, staff performance and wellbeing.

Staff felt able to raise concerns and said leaders listened and responded to their views, particularly when concerns related to people’s care. They described an inclusive and supportive leadership approach.

The service promoted an open culture in which staff felt able to raise concerns, ask questions and suggest improvements without fear of reproach. Staff understood the whistleblowing process and knew how to access the provider’s Freedom to Speak Up Guardians and external speaking-up services.

Staff raised matters directly with leaders, through supervision, informal discussions, monthly team meetings or a staff feedback form. Meeting records showed concerns, requests and workload pressures were discussed openly. Leaders said the feedback form was rarely used because staff generally felt able to approach them directly.

The freedom to speak up policy was reviewed annually, and information about speaking-up arrangements was available to all staff. Leaders recognised that formal staff-feedback mechanisms were not fully embedded and planned to introduce more structured arrangements as the service grew.

People, families and carers could raise concerns through the patient advice and liaison service, (PALS) or make a formal complaint by telephone, in writing or through the provider website. The providers policy stated that concerns should be handled promptly, fairly and consistently. It also confirmed that the patient experience team managed and investigated complaints with relevant clinical and operational leads.

Leaders reviewed concerns and feedback to identify learning and areas for improvement. Staff said leaders listened and responded appropriately when issues were raised.

Service leaders promoted an inclusive working environment in which staff felt respected, valued and supported. Leaders said the workforce included a high proportion of neurodivergent staff, which reflected the organisation’s commitment to recognising and valuing neurodiversity. Staff described a culture in which individual differences and experiences were understood and respected. This was consistent with ADHD360’s values, excellence, passion, integrity, caring (EPIC values)

Staff said leaders considered their individual circumstances and provided flexible working arrangements, reasonable adjustments and additional equipment for home working where required. Adjustments supported staff with family commitments, personal circumstances and health needs. Staff felt this flexibility helped them maintain their wellbeing and manage work-related pressures.

Staff had access to an internal creative wellbeing lead, weekly wellbeing check-ins and supportive absence-management arrangements. Managers treated staff as individuals and communicated openly about organisational changes. Staff were encouraged to take breaks, with teams working flexibly to maintain appropriate support for people using the service.

Staff described effective teamwork and said colleagues supported one another to manage workloads. Staff members we spoke to described the culture as supportive, inclusive and focused on staff wellbeing.

There was a strong commitment to staff development and internal progression. Staff could access operational management apprenticeships, secondments and internal career pathways. Leaders said many managers had progressed through internal promotion and that both clinical and non-clinical staff were encouraged and supported to develop into more senior roles.
Policies relating to staff support, induction and employment processes were in place. The service’s recruitment and equality policies promoted fair and non-discriminatory recruitment practices, including equitable advertising, shortlisting, interviewing and promotion processes, and consideration of reasonable adjustments where required.

The service had established governance and management arrangements that supported the delivery of safe, effective and sustainable care. Leaders had clear responsibilities, reporting structures and systems of accountability to monitor quality, safety, performance and organisational risk. Governance processes enabled leaders to review service performance, respond to emerging risks and drive continuous improvement.

A structured programme of meetings supported oversight and decision-making at all levels of the organisation. Weekly team and management meetings reviewed operational issues, incidents, safeguarding concerns, complaints, patient feedback, prescribing matters and emerging risks. Fortnightly subject-matter expert meetings provided opportunities for specialist discussion, performance review and shared learning. Monthly management and senior leadership meetings reviewed organisational priorities, service performance, governance information, risks and improvement activity. Directors submitted reports on service pressures, performance indicators, risks, escalations and actions, with significant concerns escalated to the board and parent organisation where required. Staff told us these arrangements promoted effective communication, oversight and organisational learning.

The provider maintained systems to monitor clinical quality, safety and operational performance. Audits covered areas including clinical records, risk assessments, prescribing, controlled drugs, infection prevention and control, fire safety and environmental safety. Findings were used to improve clinical documentation, recall systems and working practices. A monthly quality audit completed in September 2026 reviewed governance, clinical governance, operational quality, patient experience, risk and patient safety. Clinical governance achieved 93.75% assurance and risk and patient safety achieved 95% assurance. Where improvements were identified, actions were recorded and monitored.

The wider assurance programme included monthly audits of safeguarding, clinical supervision, clinical records, medicines management and workforce requirements, alongside an annual safeguarding self-assessment which achieved 89% compliance. Safeguarding assurance audits demonstrated 100% compliance, with sampled safeguarding concerns appropriately identified and managed. The provider also monitored direct supervision of ADHD assessments against a competency framework. Quality assurance audits of controlled stationery showed improvement from 67% in August 2026 to 82% in September 2026, following implementation of additional monitoring after the previous inspection.

Complaints, concerns and compliments were overseen by the Patient Experience Team alongside clinical and operational leaders. The provider's complaints policy identified the senior leadership team as accountable for oversight of complaints management and demonstrated how feedback was used to identify themes, support learning and improve quality, safety and people’s experiences of care.

Information governance arrangements supported the confidentiality, security and availability of records. Staff received information governance training and had access to the systems, information and equipment required for their roles. Records management policies clearly outlined responsibilities for the creation, storage, retention, security and disposal of records, as well as arrangements for monitoring compliance.

Electronic systems were used to monitor referrals, caseloads, appointments and service performance. The provider also produced guidance and resources for GPs to support referral pathways, assessment, treatment and communication between services. Business continuity arrangements were in place to support service sustainability and continuity of care during disruption, including risks relating to staffing, information technology, supplies, safeguarding, health and safety, and service delivery.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Staff worked with external organisations and professionals to support coordinated care. Leaders said approximately 80% of people accessed the service through NHS-funded pathways. ADHD360 worked with NHS organisations through RTC, NHS contracts and commissioned activity in specific geographical areas. Leaders recognised the importance of aligning governance, clinical standards, reporting and patient-safety arrangements with NHS requirements.

Staff worked with GPs to support RTC referrals, obtain relevant medical information, coordinate prescribing and establish shared-care arrangements where agreed. Integrated Care Board funding, commissioning requirements and available capacity influenced access and waiting times for some NHS-funded patients.

Staff worked with local authority safeguarding teams, community healthcare professionals, mental health services and crisis services when people required additional support or escalation. They also sought specialist clinical advice and referred people to external services where their needs could not be met safely within the ADHD service.

Through the wider organisation, ADHD360 worked alongside related neurodevelopmental services, including autism and therapy. These provided separate autism and speech and language pathways. The ADHD and autism services shared training, learning opportunities, governance processes, clinical expertise and operational support. Leaders said this collaboration supported shared learning and improvements across both services. Leaders stated that autism services operated through a separate pathway, with access also affected by relevant ICB requirements.

Partnerships supported referrals, assessments, treatments, prescribing and longer-term care. Responsibilities remained clearly defined, including directing people to statutory safeguarding, specialist mental health or emergency services where appropriate.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.