The Chelsea Psychology Clinic

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 hospital met people’s needs.

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

The service was responsive to the needs of all patients, including those with protected characteristics, ensuring equitable access to care and support. Individual needs and preferences were considered when planning and delivering services. The service encouraged feedback and treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigating issues thoroughly and using learning from complaints to drive improvements in the quality and delivery of care.

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.

Records showed that the service placed people at the centre of their care and treatment. Staff worked in partnership with clients to make decisions and to respond appropriately to any changes in their needs.

The service demonstrated flexibility in meeting individual needs by taking into account clients’ education, and personal commitments when arranging appointments. Appointment times were offered early in the morning, after 5pm, and at weekends to improve accessibility.

The service demonstrated a good understanding of the diverse health and care needs of its client group. Care was delivered in a responsive and flexible way, supporting client choice and continuity throughout treatment.

Records showed that staff considered the impact of clients’ needs on their education and social circumstances. These factors were explored with clients and incorporated into care planning and goal setting.

Staff appropriately informed and involved families and carers in care, where relevant and with consent.

The service offered a range of treatment pathways, enabling individuals to access ongoing and tailored support. For example, clients could be offered individual or family therapy, depending on their needs and preferences.

The service website was regularly maintained and provided clear, accessible information about treatments and staff. Content was available in both written and video formats, including short explanatory clips designed to support individuals who may be unfamiliar with mental health services. For example, the website included explanations of the differences between roles such as psychologists and psychiatrists.

The website also featured a publicly accessible blog section, covering topics relevant to the client group, such as the impact of social media on wellbeing.

Information about staff was clearly presented, including names, photographs, professional qualifications, and any additional languages spoken, supporting transparency and informed choice.

Information provided to clients at the start of their care clearly outlined what the service could offer, as well as payment or insurance arrangements and how personal information would be stored and used.

Information on how to provide feedback or make a complaint could be more prominently included on the website and in client documentation to improve accessibility and awareness.

Confidentiality was consistently maintained. Staff followed established policies and systems to ensure client information was kept secure, and there were clear confidentiality procedures in place which were well understood and adhered to by staff.

The service had effective systems in place for receiving and responding to complaints. Concerns and complaints were taken seriously, investigated thoroughly, and used as opportunities for learning and improvement. Lessons learned were shared with the wider team where appropriate.

When clients raised concerns or made complaints, they received timely responses and feedback from the service. Clear timeframes for responses were set, and clients were kept informed if there were any delays. We saw that written responses to complaints were professional, empathetic, and compassionate.

Records showed that staff regularly involved clients in discussions about their care and actively sought feedback on their progress towards agreed goals. This was reflected in client feedback, with people telling us they felt listened to, involved in decisions about their care and able to discuss their progress openly with staff. Clients said staff took account of their views when reviewing goals and adapting support to meet their changing needs. Clients told us they felt their opinions were valued and that staff worked collaboratively with them when reviewing progress and setting goals. They said staff took time to explain options, listened to their concerns and adjusted care plans where appropriate.

The service accepted clients following a thorough triage process to determine whether their needs could be safely met. The service was accessible to clients with disabilities, with options to attend appointments at one of the service’s locations or remotely, depending on individual preference.

The service had arrangements in place to access interpreters when required. In addition, some staff were able to provide care in other languages, where this was appropriate to the client’s needs and aligned with the interventions offered.

Clients were able to access care in a way that suited their needs, either in person or virtually. Appointment times were flexible and arranged to accommodate clients’ availability.

The service had low waiting times for appointments. Where necessary, a psychiatrist could assess a client on the same day to review risks urgently, ensuring that decisions could be made about whether the service could safely support the individual or whether referral to emergency services was required.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. The service were working to encourage and gather this feedback more, in order to remain responsive and adapt to the clients’ feedback.

The provider ensured their policies and procedures did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the potential issues facing vulnerable groups such as LGBTQ+ and ethnic minorities. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

Staff supported clients to consider longer-term decisions about their care, treatment, and personal goals. Care plans were personalised to reflect each person’s individual needs, wishes, and preferences. Staff recorded client views and opinions clearly in care records.

Staff ensured that all relevant healthcare professionals and external organisations were appropriately involved in the planning and delivery of care, particularly for individuals with more complex needs. The service worked collaboratively with GPs and other partners where required to support coordinated and effective care.