Transforming Mind Solutions

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

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care records we reviewed reflected physical, mental, emotional and social needs of each patient. Staff formulated a care plan for each patient which documented their symptoms and presentation in detail. Our review of care records showed patients were supported to understand their treatment options and were involved in planning for their care needs, which included documentation of their individual wishes and preferences.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Leaders told us they worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of the patient population. They told us they engaged with the NHS and integrated care board (ICB) to discuss the TMS provision and explore potential collaboration.

Staff enabled patients to involve their families and friends in their care and treatment, depending on their wishes. Patients and carers shared positive examples of this, for example, 1 patient told us, “We are involved as a family and feel very supported to ask questions.” We also observed staff engaging positively with both a patient and their relative whilst the patient was visiting the clinic for treatment.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff ensured patients could obtain information on treatment. The provider had a welcome pack and service user guide that gave information to patients. This included appointments and assessments, fees and payments, cancellations, confidentiality, and communication and safety. Leaders told us this information was available in both written and verbal formats. They said, “We cater the information we give to each patient.”

Patients could access additional policies upon request or through the service website, including the provider’s complaint procedure.

Patients we spoke with were positive about their experience in receiving information from the provider. One patient told us, “Information I have required has been accessible. Been given everything I need to know.”

The website provided detailed information about their services.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff apologised and gave people support. We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. We reviewed the complaints log and found 1 patient had raised a complaint in the 6 months preceding the assessment. This was still open and being investigated in line with the service’s complaint procedures.

Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. We reviewed “You said, we did” data and found patients had requested more clear information at the start of treatment and saw changes had been embedded into practice. For example, a patient welcome pack was in the process of being refined at the time of our assessment.

Patients and carers told us they have never needed to raise a complaint, but they would feel comfortable in doing so. One patient told us, “They are so approachable and if I needed to discuss anything with them, I would feel comfortable to raise directly.”

We saw a feedback and suggestions box in the waiting area of the service.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured they offered flexibility with appointments which meant people could access care most appropriate to their individual needs. Patient feedback was positive, with 1 patient adding, “They have slotted in appointments many times.” Staff told us patients could also be offered appointments at their satellite locations if this was more accessible to them. People could access the service to suit their needs, including in person or by telephone.

There was no treatment room available on the ground floor. However, the provider had considered mobility needs and ensured wheelchair users could access the clinic via a lift.

Leaders told us they had access to an interpreter which supported non-English speaking patients to access treatment.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback from patients we spoke with was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff used several forums to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including requesting feedback directly from the patient post-treatment.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for future treatments. This information was shared with other services when necessary.

The service sought informed consent from the patient at their initial consultation in relation to ongoing welfare checks. We saw evidence staff would offer checks post treatment at 3, 6 and 12 months. Staff ensured patients were appropriately signposted after ongoing welfare checks had concluded.