The Psychiatric Care Clinic

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

We rated effective as Good because:

Assessments were comprehensive, person-centred, and based on NICE guidance.

Staff worked effectively with GPs and other healthcare providers to support continuity of care.

Patients received health promotion advice and support to manage their wellbeing.

Outcome measures were used to monitor patient progress and treatment effectiveness.

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.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 10 patient records and found that staff assessed patients' immediate and ongoing needs and delivered care and treatment in line with current evidence-based guidance and recognised standards, including those published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Staff completed comprehensive, holistic, and person-centred assessments of patients' clinical, psychosocial, and mental health needs. They had the skills, knowledge, and experience to carry out their roles effectively. Assessments commenced with an initial triage discussion by the non-clinical administrator, during which staff explored patients' needs and the range of available treatment pathways. This was followed by a more detailed assessment and formulation with an allocated clinician.

The service used a range of specialist assessment tools to support assessment and diagnosis, including the Mental State Examination (MSE), and the Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms, Patient Health Questionnaire(PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), diagnostic interview used to assess Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (DIVA-5), The Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS V1.01) and the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ50).

Staff took time to understand patients' individual needs before reaching a diagnosis or agreeing a treatment plan. Treatment plans reflected the needs identified during assessment and demonstrated personalised, holistic, and recovery-oriented approaches to care. Staff reviewed patients' needs if and when a review appointment took place and updated care records to ensure care and treatment remained responsive to patients' progress and changing circumstances. A review was needed to be completed after one repeat prescription was made, or no further medication could be prescribed by the service.

Staff worked collaboratively within the service and with external organisations to deliver effective care and treatment. They supported patients to manage their own health, maximise their independence, and achieve their recovery goals.

Where physical health information was recorded, it was often self-reported by patients. In some records, we saw evidence that patients had provided supporting information, such as photographs of readings obtained through their GP or other healthcare professionals. Where specialist assessments, investigations, or screening were required, staff obtained information from external providers or supported patients to access appropriate services in a timely manner.

Records demonstrated that staff maintained clear and detailed documentation of assessments, treatment plans, interventions, and outcomes. Information was shared with patients in a timely manner.

We saw no evidence of discrimination in care and treatment decisions.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff were experienced, appropriately qualified, and had the skills and knowledge required to meet the needs of the patient group. Staff were able to demonstrate how they delivered care in accordance with current best practice and national guidance, and this was reflected in the assessments and treatment plans we reviewed. Interventions were based on, and delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

The service offered treatment either face to face on a designated clinic day or remotely through online appointments, depending on individual patients' needs and preferences. We observed that the service was flexible in responding to patient requests. For example, where a patient had initially been offered a face-to-face appointment but indicated that a remote consultation would better meet their needs, staff facilitated this change promptly. This demonstrated a person-centred approach and supported patients to access care in a way that was most convenient and appropriate for them.

Where liaison with other organisations was required, staff carried this out promptly and retained relevant documentation within patient records.

Both consultant psychiatrists participated in annual appraisals through an independent body and attended quarterly peer review meetings with other consultant psychiatrists to reflect on their practice, share learning, and maintain professional development.

The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of care through clinical audit activity. Where audits identified areas for improvement, these were discussed through clinical governance processes and actions taken were recorded and monitored by the registered manager. Staff acknowledged that audit processes could be developed further to provide more detailed information of the quality and effectiveness of the service.

Staff met regularly to discuss the operation of the service, including organisational and clinical matters identified through governance, oversight, and feedback processes.

Patients received coordinated and person-centred care. Staff worked effectively with external organisations and communicated appropriately with other professionals involved in patients' care, including GPs, psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, and specialist medical services.

Patients were asked on each occasion whether they consented to the service sharing details of their consultation and any prescribed medicines with their registered GP. Where patients declined consent, consultant psychiatrists discussed the potential risks associated with information not being shared and considered whether it was safe and appropriate for the service to provide treatment in those circumstances.

The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The service supported patients to lead healthier lives by incorporating health promotion advice and guidance into their treatment and care. This included discussions about healthy eating, sleep hygiene, relapse prevention, maintaining safety, and harm minimisation strategies.

Where appropriate, staff provided advice to support patients to manage their own health and wellbeing. Initial psychiatric assessment reports contained tailored information and guidance, including advice on good sleep hygiene practices and nutrition.

Staff supported patients to recognise early warning signs that their mental health may be deteriorating and worked with them to identify individual risk factors. Staff discussed the potential benefits and side effects of prescribed medicines to help patients make informed decisions about their treatment and understand any associated risks.

Where a patient's needs could not be met by the service, staff signposted or referred them to more appropriate services to ensure they received the support and treatment they required.

Outcome data was used to monitor the effectiveness of treatment and support patients' successful treatment.

The service monitored patients' progress and treatment outcomes through the use of screening and assessment tools. The measures used varied according to the patient's pathway and clinical needs and included tools such as the Mental State Examination (MSE), and the Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms, Patient Health Questionnaire(PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), diagnostic interview used to assess Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (DIVA-5), The Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS V1.01) and the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ50). and ADHD rating scales.

The service used technology to support timely access to care, communication with patients, and efficient prescribing processes.

The provider had identified opportunities to improve the completion and consistent use of outcome measures and had implemented initiatives to encourage both staff and patients to complete them.

All patients were required to provide informed consent before commencing treatment and were given clear information about the services and treatments available to them. Records of consent were maintained within the electronic patient record system.

Staff took appropriate steps to support patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. Where there were concerns or uncertainty regarding a patient's capacity to consent, staff assessed and documented mental capacity in line with relevant legislation and guidance.

Records demonstrated that staff clearly documented patients' preferences regarding the sharing of information with other organisations involved in their care and treatment. Consent to share information with a patient's GP and other relevant professionals was discussed and recorded as part of the assessment and treatment process.

The service's registration process included clear information about treatment arrangements, fees, and cancellation policies. This helped to ensure patients understood the terms of the service and could make informed decisions before commencing treatment.