Psychiatry-UK

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

Staff appropriately assessed the needs of children and young people and delivered care in line with up to date evidence-based research and national guidance such as National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Staff supported young people to live healthier lives by providing additional resources and advice. Staff participated in clinical audits and quality improvement initiatives which was informed by people's feedback.

Staff assessed children and young people's immediate and ongoing needs using AI technology and risks were reviewed by clinicians. Where appropriate, this included their clinical needs and their mental and physical wellbeing. Staff assessed suitability for treatment and discussed with clinicians during multidisciplinary meetings.

Staff involved all key stakeholders including people's GPs to ensure there was enough information to make a judgement following an assessment.

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.

Staff completed comprehensive assessment for people including reviewing the child's developmental history, friendships, family details, family structures, their neighbourhood, their socio-economic status, mental health and any substance misuse issues. Then staff carried out an initial observation as part of the assessment

Staff involved parents and carers in the child or young person's assessment, when required.

Young peoples' initial assessments were structured according to NICE guidance. Staff used the pre assessment forms to record clinical history. Staff followed the provider's guidance on completing assessments. Managers carried out audits on these assessments periodically. Staff worked with young people and their carers to develop individual care plans and updated them when needed. Care plans reflected the assessed needs, were personalised and holistic.

Managers monitored staff's performance to ensure that clinical letters and appointment transcripts were sent out on time to the young person and their GPs. This process was supported by the provider's new technological system, and staff reported it made the process faster and more efficient, allowing them more time to spend with young people.

Staff delivered evidence based care and treatment in line with national guidance. The service had an audit implementation group which was set up in December 2024. This group ensured that staff followed professional guidance and legislation. For example, staff reported that the CAMHS ADHD assessments had recently been audited and were consistent with NICE guidance.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Staff supported children and young people to live healthier lives by supporting them to take part in programmes or giving advice. Children and young people were signposted by their clinicians to a variety of resources on the service website and externally to other resources such as meditation techniques, improving sleep hygiene and recommended apps, books and therapy.

Staff made sure young people had support for their physical health needs, either from their GP or community health services.

The provider used recognised rating scales to assess and record severity and outcomes.

Clinical staff engaged actively in clinical audits.

The provider had implemented several new areas of innovative information technology work to improve young peoples experience and outcomes. This included an AI appointment letter generator, which tracked clinical mail into the organisation and mail to young people, and an AI indicative risk screening tool for analysing key risk information designed to assist clinicians in reviewing extensive records effectively. These AI tools were used by registered clinicians in the organisation and integrated with each other.

The provider conducted friends and family tests and fed back the results directly to staff. The provider employed a patient experience lead who worked with young people and their carers to give feedback about their experiences of the service and passed on that information to the provider for improvement.

The provider's new virtual assistant informed young people of any progress whilst they were on the waiting list to be seen.

Staff understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making.

At every assessment and prior to treatment the service required the young person to give consent.

The provider's consent policy had recently been updated in line with concerns around parental responsibility. For example, where one parent agreed to the assessment and the other opposed. In line with NHS guidance, only one parent needed to consent for the assessment to take place. However, following MDT discussions, staff agreed with parents that if the second parent opposed, they would not proceed with the assessment.

Children under the age of 16 had to be accompanied by a parent but staff did apply Gillick competence if the child wanted to be on their own.

The child was asked for consent to the session being recorded and if they objected, staff asked the parent to be present and to give consent. Consent to recording was optional. If consent to record was not given, staff proceeded without recording.