The Chelsea Psychology Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

This means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first inspection of this service since it registered. This key question has been rated good.

Services were safe, clean, well furnished, well maintained and fit for purpose. Staff assessed and managed risks to clients well. Staff understood how to identify and manage risks and the service worked well with other agencies to do so, when necessary. The service used systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines.

We have not awarded this service a score for Safe.

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

The provider had a clear process in place for staff to identify, report, and review incidents occurring within the service, including those involving harm, potential harm, and risks to safety. Senior staff regularly reviewed incidents and maintained a written log to ensure that learning was identified, shared, and used to improve practice and reduce the likelihood of recurrence. Actions were assigned to individual staff members and progress was monitored through regular review.

Staff were kept informed of updates, learning, and changes resulting from incidents through communication channels such as emails and supervision sessions.

The service had 2 serious incidents within the last 12 months. Both were appropriately reviewed and investigated, with learning identified and acted upon. Effective systems are in place to support incident management, reporting, investigation, and ongoing oversight.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Duty of Candour, a legal requirement which requires providers to be open and transparent with clients about their care if something goes wrong.

The service was about to introduce a new electronic patient record system. This change was due to feedback received from a staff survey and aligned with the feedback we received from staff during the inspection. Clinical staff were aware of the change in electronic record system that was due to happen soon.

The service had effective referral and admission processes in place to ensure all essential information about clients was obtained to determine whether their needs could be safely met. Where the service was unable to meet a client’s needs safely, staff appropriately signposted individuals to suitable alternative services.

A dedicated triage team, who had received specific training in engaging with clients, gathered comprehensive information regarding individuals’ needs and goals at the point of first contact. This information was used to assess suitability for the service and to determine the most appropriate staff member or therapeutic pathway. This process and its outcomes were clearly explained to clients.

Service leaders met regularly to discuss complex cases, incidents and complaints, and staff were encouraged to participate where appropriate.

Staff worked collaboratively with relevant healthcare and social care services to ensure continuity of safe care both during engagement with the service and following discharge. This included effective partnership working with GPs and community mental health teams, ensuring timely information sharing and coordinated care.

The service clearly communicated, through written information provided to clients, that it did not offer emergency support. Guidance was provided outlining how clients could access emergency mental health services if required. Information was carefully considered to ensure it was accessible and informative, particularly for those who may not have used emergency services before. For example, clients were given clear explanations of what to expect, including who they might see, when attending a hospital emergency department during a mental health crisis.

Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and children levels 1,2 and 3, knew how to raise a safeguarding concern, and did that when appropriate. Compliance with safeguarding training was 100%. The service had a safeguarding lead in place for adults and a lead for children. Staff we spoke with knew who these leads were and said they were accessible and responsive.

Staff knew how to identify adults and children at risk of, or suffering, significant harm and knew how to manage this risk. This included working in partnership with other agencies.

Staff could give examples of how to protect clients from discrimination, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

We reviewed 21 care records for adults accessing the service. Records demonstrated that staff actively involved clients in identifying risks and discussing how these could be managed. Where risks were identified, staff and clients reviewed these regularly and agreed on appropriate strategies and techniques to mitigate them. Documentation showed ongoing discussions regarding risk and the effectiveness of these strategies. Clients consistently reported positive outcomes when applying the techniques provided by staff, and over time, records indicated a reduction in identified risks.

Staff completed thorough initial assessments for all new clients, clearly documenting identified risks and management plans within care records. Risk was reviewed and recorded at each appointment where needed. Where clients presented with risks beyond the service’s scope, staff took appropriate action by signposting or referring to relevant external services based on individual needs.

Staff demonstrated the ability to recognise and respond to changes in risk levels, with updates clearly recorded in client notes.

Staff were aware of the requirements for keeping written records about clients care and treatment. A small number of staff were not using the electronic system and kept their notes in a separate place. The provider had identified this as an area for improvement and planned to address it when the new client record system was introduced.

Caseloads were well managed, ensuring staff had sufficient time to provide effective care and support to each client.

Information relating to care plans was appropriately shared through written communication with clients and, where appropriate, their GP to support continuity of care.

The service encouraged clients to provide feedback and was actively working to improve response rates. A dedicated member of staff had been appointed to lead on developing and strengthening feedback processes.

The building landlord and senior staff from the service carried out appropriate environmental safety checks and risk assessments. These included general health and safety assessments and fire risk assessments. All electrical appliances had undergone portable appliance testing (PAT) to ensure they were safe for use.

The premises were safe, clean, well-equipped, well-furnished, and well-maintained, providing an environment that was fit for purpose. Access to the service was controlled through a buzzer entry system at the front door, helping to ensure the safety and security of staff and clients.

The service had a system in place to enable staff to seek assistance from colleagues if required during client sessions.

Fire safety equipment was regularly checked to ensure it remained fit for purpose. Clear signage was in place to guide staff and clients on what to do in the event of an emergency. Staff completed a fire drill in April 2026. Completion rates for health and safety awareness was 98% across all staff.

The service had enough staff of different disciplines, who knew their clients well and were appropriately trained to deliver appropriate interventions.

The service employed some staff directly and some staff under formal practicing privileges. This means individual professionals were granted the authority to deliver care at the service, in line with their individual qualifications. The service understood their responsibilities around this and ensured all staff received training, supervision and support and delivered care in line with the provider’s policies and procedures.

Caseloads were managed so that individual staff could give each client the time they needed.

The service had a focus on supporting staff training and development. Staff received a range of mandatory and specialist training appropriate for the patient group using the service. Examples included health and safety awareness, information governance and data security, and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) awareness. Staff said they received appropriate training for their role.

Compliance with mandatory training was 100% for employed staff and 96% for those employed under practicing privileges. Managers monitored mandatory training and alerted staff when they needed to update their training.

In addition to mandatory training, the service also offered regular, monthly opportunities for training in several areas of continuing professional development. These were relevant to service delivery and provided structured learning activities to develop and enhance staff skills. Staff spoke positively about this training, said the training offer was robust and they were pleased with the range of continuing professional development training topics offered. Leadership staff were clear in their approach to providing a high standard of training and development opportunities for their staff.

Staff received a comprehensive induction when joining the service. All staff we spoke with described the induction as detailed and informative, covering the provider's systems, policies and procedures and an introduction to the wider team. Staff were provided with an induction booklet to support their learning and understanding of the service.

Staff who had joined the service several years ago told us they continued to receive clear and timely updates about any changes to policies, procedures, and working practices. This helped to ensure they remained informed and able to carry out their roles in line with current requirements.

Staff did not report any experiences of bullying or harassment at work. All staff told us they felt safe at work.

The service did not have a high number of vacancies. Where staff left the service, this was considered and communicated with clients well in advance so that continuation of care could be provided as much as possible.

The service completed the required pre-employment checks for staff, including criminal record checks, verification of qualifications, and confirmation of the right to work. These checks were undertaken at the point of recruitment and monitored on an ongoing basis where appropriate. The service also ensured that all necessary checks and agreements were in place before granting practising privileges.

We reviewed 3 staff files for employees working directly for the service. These records contained evidence that all required recruitment and employment checks had been completed. We also reviewed 4 files relating to individuals who had been granted practising privileges and found that the required checks and supporting documentation were in place.

All records were well organised, clearly documented, and readily accessible.

There were systems in place to deal with poor staff performance promptly and effectively.

All areas of the service were observed to be clean, well-furnished, and appropriately maintained.

The service employed an external cleaning company to carry out regular cleaning. Records of daily cleaning checks were available, and high-touch areas were cleaned frequently and in line with expected standards.

Medicines were generally prescribed and managed in line with national guidance. The service had systems and procedures in place to support safe prescribing, including arrangements for repeat prescriptions, high-risk medicines and controlled drugs. Treatments were overseen by consultants with the appropriate skills and experience. Prescription stationery was stored securely, and auditable records were maintained detailing when prescriptions were issued to prescribers.

The service had implemented a revised prescribing model following an improvement project aimed at reducing delays in access to medicines. As part of this approach, the provider operated a service level agreement (SLA) with an independent prescribing pharmacist who prescribed medicines on behalf of consultants. The pharmacist had relevant mental health experience and access to clients' clinical records as required for their role. Although the agreement clearly outlined responsibilities and arrangements for information access, it was not evident how clients were informed of these arrangements or whether explicit consent had been obtained for the sharing of information in this way. However, we saw evidence of effective communication between the service and the external pharmacy, including the escalation of concerns and discussions regarding the need for further client reviews.

The service had also introduced a repeat prescribing process as part of the improvement work. Requests were received through a dedicated inbox managed by trained non-clinical staff before being reviewed by a pharmacist or psychiatrist, where needed, for prescribing decisions. Staff told us this process had reduced delays and improved timely access to repeat medication.

Where necessary, staff carried out physical health monitoring in line with relevant guidance. Records demonstrated that clients' GPs were informed of new treatments and any changes to prescribed medicines. Where medicines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) were prescribed, staff obtained and reviewed appropriate physical health information, including electrocardiograms (ECGs) where required, before treatment commenced. Medical histories were routinely requested from clients' GPs as part of the assessment process and this was consistently recorded.

Records showed that staff regularly reviewed the effectiveness of medicines with clients and monitored for side effects. We saw detailed documentation of discussions relating to the impact of treatment on areas such as sleep, weight, attention, mood, wellbeing, relationships and employment. Where clients reported no side effects or concerns, this was also clearly recorded.

The service had suitable arrangements in place for the safe management of medicines. No medicines were stored on-site. Prescriptions were either issued directly to clients or sent to a partner pharmacy. Appropriate systems were also in place to ensure the safe management of controlled drugs prescription stationery, including maintaining records and auditing the stationary.