ADHD Treatment Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This was the first assessment for ADHD Treatment Centre. This key question has been rated as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Staff assessed people’s needs and delivered care in line with current national guidance, including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance (NICE). Assessments were comprehensive and included mental health, physical health and wellbeing. Staff used recognised clinical tools to support diagnosis, treatment planning and outcome monitoring.

Staff delivered evidence-based care and treatment and monitored this through clinical audits, reviews and outcome measures. Staff supported people to live healthier lives by providing advice and monitoring physical health alongside treatment.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

We reviewed 4 care records. These showed structured assessments for 4 people, with ongoing review arrangements recorded in treatment plans. Staff completed comprehensive assessments covering mental health, physical health and wellbeing. Assessment records showed staff gathered information about presenting concerns, family and developmental history, risk, medical history, current medicines, allergies, sleep, appetite, relationships, employment and the impact of ADHD symptoms across different settings.

Staff obtained physical health information before prescribing, usually through GP summaries, and recorded baseline checks such as blood pressure, pulse, weight and height where appropriate. Staff used recognised assessment tools, including the Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) and the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS). These are standardised rating scales used to assess ADHD symptoms.

The Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults (DIVA) was used as the main assessment tool. This is a structured clinical interview used to assess ADHD symptoms in adulthood and childhood. Clinicians explained how it was scored against the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), which sets out standardised diagnostic criteria for mental health conditions. Staff also used the Autism Spectrum Quotient-10 Adult (AQ10 Adult) screening tool and a neurological survey to support the identification of developmental and neurodevelopmental needs.

Staff involved people and their families in assessment and care planning and used information from family members, GPs and other professionals where relevant. Care plans reflected assessed needs, were personalised and holistic, and were updated when required. The service also used a bipolar spectrum screening checklist before starting or continuing stimulant medicines to prompt consideration of co-existing or alternative mental health conditions.

The service planned and delivered care in line with current evidence-based guidance. Staff followed relevant policies and guidance when assessing, prescribing and reviewing care. Care and treatment included ADHD assessment, medication initiation and titration, and ongoing review. The service did not provide therapy directly but directed people to external psychology providers where appropriate.

Staff monitored the effectiveness of treatment through structured medication reviews, which included physical health checks. Staff obtained GP summaries before starting treatment and shared clinical information with GPs when this supported care and treatment. Staff followed NICE guidance when completing assessments, using pre-assessment forms to record clinical history.

Staff participated in clinical audit and quality improvement activity to monitor and improve care. Monthly prescribing audits over the previous 6 months reviewed 10 patient records each month and showed records met the required standards. A controlled drugs prescribing audit completed in April 2026 reviewed 40 records and found 100% compliance for ADHD diagnosis, prescribing indication and legal requirements, 99% for baseline physical health monitoring, 98% for shared care documentation where appropriate and 94% for 6-month medication reviews.

Titration audits completed between January and May 2026 reviewed records for safe initiation of stimulant treatment, baseline checks and ongoing monitoring. These audits showed diagnosis, consent, medicine information, physical health monitoring and ongoing review arrangements were usually documented. Monthly ADHD prescribing audits also reviewed whether baseline observations, titration plans, side effects, symptom improvement, review intervals and shared care arrangements were recorded, and the samples reviewed were recorded as compliant. Learning from audits and incidents led to improvements in documentation, monitoring arrangements and escalation pathways.

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 month, 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 line with the provider's policy. Supervision records showed that all 7 eligible staff (100%) had received supervision during the review period. A further 3 staff (30% of the workforce) had joined the service during the inspection period and were still within their probationary period, with supervision already scheduled. Staff also received ongoing clinical oversight and support through multidisciplinary team discussions, where patient cases, risk and treatment decisions were routinely reviewed. The registered manager received quarterly clinical supervision from an external consultant psychiatrist.

Staff, teams and services worked together to meet people’s needs. Multidisciplinary meetings took place monthly, and records showed ongoing discussion of risk, prescribing and safeguarding concerns. Staff worked with GPs and other professionals where this was relevant to care. Staff communicated with families and involved occupational therapy or psychology services where appropriate.

The service had arrangements for external specialist advice. Staff told us psychiatry input could be sought where risks escalated or diagnostic uncertainty arose. This included a collaboration agreement for cross-cover, governance review and specialist support where required. Staff escalated concerns to psychiatry when changes in a person’s mental health presentation indicated the need for specialist input.

The service made sure people were supported to live healthier lives by giving advice, monitoring physical health and signposting to additional support where needed. Staff discussed lifestyle changes with people, including advice about nutrition, sleep, diet and general wellbeing, and records showed these discussions were documented where appropriate.

Staff supported people to access additional resources to improve their health and wellbeing. The service signposted people to external support, including psychology services and other resources available through the service and its partner organisations, to support emotional wellbeing and functioning.

Recognised rating scales were used to assess and record the severity of symptoms and outcomes for adults, including the Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scale and the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale. These tools supported structured assessment of symptoms and monitoring of outcomes across different aspects of people’s daily functioning.

The service monitored outcomes through activity and diagnostic data. Between January and May 2026, the service completed 53 adult ADHD assessments, with 47 diagnoses and 6 cases where ADHD was not diagnosed, giving a diagnosis rate of 88.7%. For autism assessments in the same period, 19 assessments were completed, with 15 diagnoses and 4 people not diagnosed, giving a diagnosis rate of 79%.

The service also monitored service performance measures, including completing assessments within 6 weeks of booking. This was supported by pre-assessment forms, flexible appointment scheduling and use of clinical systems to track caseloads and waiting times. During January to June 2026, 33 of 66 adult assessments progressed to medication planning.

The service used audits, records, meetings and feedback to monitor outcomes and improve care. The service reported that over 80% of people continued with ongoing care where appropriate, supported by personalised care planning, timely responses to queries and collection of feedback. The service also monitored review compliance and aimed to achieve over 90% compliance with medication reviews, which were completed every 4 weeks during titration and every 6 months once stable or under shared care.

There was clear evidence that care led to meaningful outcomes for people. Feedback and care records showed care led to meaningful outcomes for people. People reported improvements in daily functioning, focus, emotional wellbeing and self-management following assessment and treatment. People also reported a greater understanding of their condition and an improved ability to manage symptoms, which had a positive impact on day-to-day life, relationships and confidence.

The service sought and recorded consent to care and treatment. Staff understood and followed relevant legislation, guidance and the service’s consent policy when seeking consent and supporting decision-making. They obtained, respected and reviewed informed consent throughout the care pathway, including during assessment, consultation, prescribing, medical titration, transfer to shared care arrangements with GPs and ongoing treatment reviews.

The service had clear processes to assess capacity and obtain informed consent. Treatment records showed consent was obtained before assessment and treatment and included consent for information sharing with GPs and ongoing care.

People told us they felt involved in decisions about care and treatment and said staff explained treatment options clearly. Records supported that consent was consistently sought and respected throughout people’s care and treatment journey.