ADHD Treatment Centre

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This was the first assessment for ADHD Treatment Centre. This key question has been rated as good.

There was no waiting list at the time of assessment. People could book appointments online or be booked directly where required. Staff told us everyone referred to the service had been allocated and was receiving care. People could access care in ways that suited their needs and preferences, including face-to-face and remote appointments. Appointments were offered at different times of the day, including mornings and evenings.

The service organised care around people’s individual circumstances. People could self-refer and were supported through a pathway from assessment to diagnosis, treatment and ongoing review. Staff used electronic systems to monitor caseloads and appointment availability, supporting timely access to care. People received clear information about care, treatment options and next steps.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

People were placed at the centre of their care and treatment decisions. Feedback described care as personalised, supportive and responsive, with people receiving clear explanations about diagnosis, treatment options and next steps. People were actively involved in care planning and reviews.

Assessments were comprehensive and informed personalised care plans that reflected individual needs and preferences. Assessment reports and reviews were detailed, holistic and person-centred. Staff offered treatment choices, including medication, lifestyle adjustments and signposting to additional support where appropriate.

Staff took time to understand individual experiences and tailored care to people’s preferences and goals. People were supported to explore different approaches based on their individual needs. Staff explained that some people managed well using coping strategies and lifestyle adjustments at certain stages and chose not to start medication but returned to the service later when their needs changed and they required additional support.

Care was delivered in a way that supported individual communication needs. Staff adapted their approach to ensure people could engage effectively in assessments and reviews. Care plans reflected people’s preferences, with input from families and relevant professionals where appropriate.

Staff ensured continuity was maintained either through ongoing specialist follow-up or through shared care arrangements with the GP. People did not see multiple staff members unnecessarily. People could return to the service when they were ready if they had stopped care after assessment or diagnosis. Follow-up letters were used where people did not attend reviews or did not collect prescriptions.

Care records showed discharge planning and onward arrangements were clearly documented. Records described a pathway in which people were usually considered for shared care after stabilisation on medication for around 3 months, with ongoing 6-monthly reviews for medication and general wellbeing. Between January and April 2026, the provider made 58 shared care requests, of which 47 were accepted, including 17 of 24 for adults.

Communication with GPs supported wider coordination of care. Staff worked with GPs when people moved into shared care arrangements, and records showed information was shared with consent to support continuity. There were coordinated responses to changes in people’s presentation, including timely escalation to specialist psychiatric services and transfer of care where appropriate.

The service provided clear and accessible information to help people understand their care, treatment and what to expect from the service. People received information through booking emails, appointments, telephone contact, information leaflets, fact sheets and the service website. Staff were available to answer questions, provide guidance and explain treatment options, review arrangements and available support services.

People told us they received written information following discussions with clinicians, which helped them understand their options and make informed decisions about their care. Information could be provided in accessible formats, including easy-read versions and different languages. Interpretation services were available where required to support people’s understanding and involvement in care.

The service had clear governance arrangements to protect information and support safe information sharing. This included an Information Governance Breach Reporting Policy, with defined roles such as Information Governance Lead, Senior Information Risk Owner and Data Protection Officer. The service also had a Data Protection Officer Policy, a cyber resilience policy and a confidentiality agreement for staff and contractors.

All staff had completed information governance training, including cyber security. Staff followed the provider’s confidentiality policy in practice. Consent to assessment, treatment and information sharing was documented, and information governance arrangements included secure electronic records with two-factor authentication. Care plans and reports were shared with people and, where appropriate, with GPs.

The service listened to people and involved them in decisions about their care and treatment. People told us they felt involved in care planning and that their views, concerns and experiences were taken seriously. Feedback reviewed was positive and reflected good outcomes, including improvements in work and relationships.

People knew how to complain or raise concerns. Complaints were acknowledged promptly, and people received feedback following investigation. Staff told us they listened to concerns, responded professionally and without judgement, and ensured people who raised concerns were not treated differently. Staff understood how to handle complaints and received feedback on investigation outcomes.

The service had systems to receive and respond to concerns. Staff told us people could complain through the website or by email. Complaints were acknowledged within 72 hours, and outcomes were usually provided within 28 days. The complaints folder showed there were no active formal complaints at the time of inspection. The compliments folder showed 6 compliments between March 2025 and April 2026. In the last 6 months, the service had 2 informal complaints. All complaints were closed and addressed within 1 working day. Issues raised included service expectations and access arrangements.

The service provided fair access to care and supported people to access care in a way that reflected their needs. Staff said urgent referrals to psychiatry could be arranged within 1 to 2 weeks, and non-urgent referrals were usually seen within 3 weeks. People could be supported onsite or remotely according to need and request.

People requiring support with ADHD and ASD could access the service, including those not using the NHS Right to Choose pathway. NHS Right to Choose is a national scheme that allows people to choose their preferred provider for certain NHS-funded services following referral by a GP or other NHS professional. Staff told us the service was not commissioned through the NHS Right to Choose pathway but would consider referrals from people using this process and accept them if the service could meet their needs.

The service accepted referrals from people across the country, including those accessing the service privately or through other referral pathways. Staff told us there was always medical cover available, and clinicians were supported by a multidisciplinary team and clinical oversight arrangements. Staff made reasonable adjustments to meet people’s needs. The premises included lift access to support people with mobility needs.

The service worked to support equitable experiences and outcomes by adapting care to people’s different needs and presentations. Feedback from people described improved confidence, working memory, better day-to-day functioning and improved support in work and home life.

People could self-refer to the service for private assessment for ADHD and ASD. Care was delivered through a structured pathway that began with developing an understanding of the person’s difficulties and experiences, which informed assessment, diagnosis and treatment planning. The service continued to provide support and monitoring where medication was required.

All staff had completed equality, diversity and human right training. The service promoted a culture where people and their families felt able to share their views and be involved in the service. The service ensured that people, including those with protected characteristics, were not disadvantaged.

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.

The service supported people to make informed decisions about their care and treatment and involved them in planning for the future. Records showed staff developed personalised care plans that reflected people's needs, wishes and preferences, including decisions about treatment options and ongoing support. People told us they were involved in discussions about their care and understood the plans agreed with staff.

When people had more complex needs, staff worked with relevant healthcare professionals and other services to plan and coordinate care. Records showed staff liaised with GPs and other specialist services where required to help ensure people received appropriate support and continuity of care.