Archived: ADHD Treatment Centre

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. This was the first assessment for ADHD Treatment Centre. This key question has been rated as 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 told us they 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.

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.

People told us they felt listened to, respected and supported throughout their care and treatment. People consistently described staff as responsive and supportive, including timely responses to queries and involvement in reviews and decision-making. Staff attitudes and behaviours were described as discreet, respectful and responsive.

People described receiving help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. Staff provided repeated and detailed explanations of diagnosis, treatment options and next steps, helping people understand their care and make informed decisions. People experienced flexible and accommodating support, including timely responses to queries and clear guidance on processes.

Sufficient time was given during assessments and reviews, and people said they did not feel rushed. People were supported to ask questions and clarify information at multiple stages. The service also offered short, free calls of up to 10 minutes to provide additional support without requiring payment.

Staff created a safe and supportive environment where people felt able to share wider concerns about their wellbeing. People were supported with medication processes, including clear guidance on prescriptions, coordination with GPs and pharmacies, and ongoing monitoring to ensure treatment remained safe and effective.

Staff directed people to other services when appropriate. The service worked in partnership with external psychology services to offer emotional and behavioural support, and staff explained these options clearly while supporting people to decide whether to engage.

Feedback from families was positive and included examples of improved wellbeing, confidence and engagement in work and daily life. We reviewed feedback from 4 families of people who used the service. They described clinicians as professional, supportive and responsive. People told us they felt listened to and involved and confirmed they were asked for feedback and understood how to raise concerns.

Staff ensured care and treatment reflected people’s individual needs, circumstances and choices. Treatment plans included information about medication, lifestyle advice and ongoing monitoring arrangements. Staff considered each person’s preferences and needs when offering treatment options, including signposting to psychological support services where appropriate.

People received consistent care and support. People told us they were seen by the same clinician, which helped maintain continuity and understanding of their individual needs. Staff considered personal and cultural needs, including specific medication advice for people fasting during Ramadan, to ensure treatment remained safe and appropriate.

People and their families could obtain information about treatments, local services and support through the service website, by telephone and during appointments. Staff responded to queries, provided guidance and explained treatment options clearly, supported by information leaflets. Information could be adapted to meet individual communication needs, including access to other languages, interpreters and sign language support where required.

The service supported people to have choice, control and independence. Staff provided information about treatment options, including medication and alternative psychological support. People were able to decide whether to accept or decline these options.

People were offered a range of treatment options following diagnosis, including medication, lifestyle changes and psychological support. These interventions were offered as alternatives, and people were not required to proceed with medication titration. People told us they were not forced to make decisions following diagnosis and had the time and information they needed to decide what was right for them.

The service always responded to people’s immediate needs and ensured that care and support adapted to changes in presentation. Staff developed comprehensive care plans for each person that met their mental and physical health needs, and these were regularly reviewed and updated when needs changed.

Staff provided advice to people about what to do if their health deteriorated, including emergency contacts such as the GP, NHS 111 and 999 and escalation processes, which were recorded within care records and shared appropriately. People could access timely advice and support when needed. One person said, “Staff kept me informed of any changes. An example is that the pharmacy the clinic used was changed and I was immediately informed of this.”

Staff used structured processes, including regular contact and review, to monitor people’s wellbeing and respond to concerns. Staff described using digital systems to identify and respond to risks promptly. Clear escalation pathways were in place, and staff acted appropriately when risks were identified, including referral to other services and arranging timely follow‑up.

Families were included in discussions about changes to people’s presentation and care, and staff considered the whole person when planning support. This included reviewing physical health, emotional wellbeing and behavioural changes and adjusting treatment and monitoring arrangements accordingly.

The service supported staff wellbeing and promoted a positive working environment. Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued, and described a strong sense of teamwork and shared purpose. Staff spoke positively about working for the service and said they were proud of the care they delivered.

Staff had access to support for their professional and emotional wellbeing through regular supervision, appraisal and multidisciplinary team meetings. These provided opportunities for reflective practice, learning and support. The service had an induction programme with a structured 4-week process and role-specific training requirements. Records included induction checklists, training documentation, monitoring of staff competencies and ongoing development arrangements.

All eligible staff had completed at least 1 appraisal in the current calendar year, and appraisal processes included discussions about performance, development and career progression. Staff told us they could raise concerns and share feedback openly, and there was an open culture where learning and improvement were discussed within team meetings. The service sickness absence rate for the previous 12 months was 0.82%.

The service had policies in place to support supervision and performance management. The service had a structured appraisal system and conducted annual appraisals. In the last 6 months, 89% of staff had completed an appraisal. Appraisals covered clinical competencies, continuing professional development, training requirements, objectives and wellbeing. Staff were supported to complete additional training relevant to their roles, and appraisal documentation included development plans and objectives for the next review period. Staff told us there had been no performance concerns, but where issues were identified, they would be addressed through supervision and training.

Managers provided staff with regular supervision and support. Supervision took place every 8 to 12 weeks for both clinical and non-clinical staff. In the last 6 months, 70% of staff had recorded supervision, with a further 30% having supervision booked. All eligible staff received supervision, except for new starters and those on statutory leave. Some staff had more than one supervision session recorded. The registered manager also received quarterly clinical supervision from an external consultant psychiatrist.