The Chelsea Psychology Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that hospital leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

The service was in breach of 1 regulation, relating to notifying the Care Quality Commission of certain specific information. The service confirmed they would take immediate action to address this.

The service was well led, with capable and experienced leaders, effective governance arrangements, and a positive organisational culture. Staff felt supported and had access to the information and resources needed to provide safe, high-quality care while risks and performance were managed effectively.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

Leaders were passionate in describing the vision and values for the service they had established and the reasons for it. They could easily describe how these were applied in the work of each member of their team. The senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service and kept this in mind during recruitment. Staff we spoke with demonstrated these values in how they described their work and experience of being employed at the service.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for their service, especially where the service was changing. Several staff had been supported with training and opportunities for progressing in their position in the service and were very involved in strategy and development of the service.

Staff could explain how they were working to deliver high quality care and how they would continually look for ways to develop this. Interventions were evidence based and the range available was continually considered and adapted in response to client need.

All staff we spoke with were proud to work for the provider. They described the service as offering a wide range of high-quality treatment options and good support, training and supervision for staff.

Staff said the culture of the team meant staff were comfortable to raise any concerns or ideas for improvement, and these were listened to and responded to appropriately.

Leaders had the appropriate skills, knowledge, and experience to carry out their roles effectively.

They demonstrated a strong understanding of the services they delivered and managed and were able to clearly explain how teams were working to deliver high-quality care.

Leaders were visible within the service and were approachable to both staff and clients, promoting an open and supportive culture.

Opportunities for leadership development were available, including pathways to support staff in progressing into leadership roles.

Staff said they felt respected, supported and valued. They said they could raise any concerns without fear. Staff said they could directly approach senior managers with any issues or concerns they had.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy which staff could refer to. The service did not have a Speak Up champion, but the manager aimed to appoint one in the future.

Clients had opportunities to give feedback as well as formal complaints. The service had considered the best ways to actively seek feedback from clients and were working to develop this more consistently.

Staff were able to request flexible working arrangements to suit their personal circumstances. This included agreements to support needs such as caring responsibilities and health conditions, enabling staff to maintain a positive work–life balance.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff to help them carry out their role, where needed.

The service had established a number of governance, risk management and performance monitoring processes to support the delivery of care. However, we identified several areas where arrangements required strengthening to provide greater assurance regarding compliance, clinical oversight and the effectiveness of governance systems.

Audit processes were not always sufficiently robust to identify and address areas of concern in a timely way. Although a range of clinical audits were undertaken, these were not always completed with sufficient frequency or structure to maximise their effectiveness. This was evidenced by an example where a staff member had not uploaded clinical records within the provider's required 24-hour timeframe, which had not been identified through existing audit arrangements. In addition, while the medical director carried out prescribing audits, the outcomes, findings and associated learning were not consistently documented. This limited the provider's ability to demonstrate effective oversight of prescribing practices and to evidence how learning was used to drive improvement.

The provider had also not consistently submitted all statutory notifications to the Care Quality Commission as required. Leaders recognised this during the inspection and took steps to address the issue.

Despite these concerns, we found several areas of good practice. The service had a clear governance framework which set out the purpose and frequency of meetings, helping to ensure important information, including learning from incidents and complaints, was shared with staff. Systems were in place for managing risks, issues and performance, and managers had access to information relating to training, supervision and other key performance indicators to support effective oversight. Where audits were completed, actions were clearly identified, allocated to named individuals and monitored through to completion. The service successfully made sure that the staff it employed directly and through practising privileges both received and we're up to date with training.

The service demonstrated a clear understanding of its duty to collaborate and work in partnership with other organisations, ensuring that care was coordinated and seamless for clients.

Staff shared relevant information and learning with partner organisations and worked collaboratively to support continuous improvement in service delivery and client outcomes.

Staff described a positive culture of learning, with access to opportunities to develop their knowledge and skills.

At the time of the assessment, staff were not actively participating in any formal quality improvement initiatives. Management told us they used observations of staff practice to identify areas where additional support or development was required. In response, they introduced focused training sessions on specific topics to strengthen staff knowledge, skills and confidence. These sessions provided staff with opportunities to discuss areas of practice, refresh their understanding of procedures and receive targeted guidance from senior colleagues. Leaders told us this proactive approach helped ensure staff felt well supported and competent to carry out their roles effectively.