The Psychiatric Care 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

We rated well-led as Good because:

Leaders were visible, approachable and closely involved in the day-to-day running of the service.

Staff described an open culture where they felt comfortable raising concerns and sharing ideas.

The service promoted equality, diversity and inclusion for staff and patients.

There was evidence of innovation through the use of technology to support service delivery and administrative processes.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff spoke passionately about the vision and values underpinning the service and clearly articulated the rationale behind its development. They were able to demonstrate how these values were embedded throughout the organisation and reflected in the day-to-day work of staff.

Staff were able to explain how they delivered high-quality care and demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement.

All staff we spoke with expressed pride in working for the service.

Staff told us the culture within the service was open, supportive and inclusive. They felt comfortable raising concerns and sharing feedback with each other.

Leaders had the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles effectively. They demonstrated a strong understanding of the service and were able to clearly explain how care was delivered and monitored to ensure positive outcomes for patients.

The service had a small workforce consisting of 3 staff members, including the leadership team. As a result, leaders were fully integrated into the day-to-day running of the service. Leaders also delivered clinical work and as a result had a detailed understanding of patients' needs.

Staff we spoke with described a positive culture in which they felt able and encouraged to speak up. Staff told us the small size of the service, which consisted of three staff members enabled regular and open communication.

All staff spoke about the service's commitment to the personal wellbeing and the creation of a supportive working environment.

The service had a whistleblowing policy in place, and staff knew how to access and use it when required. Staff told us they felt confident to raise concerns and were assured they could do so without fear of adverse consequences.

There was evidence that concerns, feedback and ideas for improvement could be discussed openly and acted upon, in line with the principles of Freedom to Speak Up. We reviewed meeting minutes that demonstrated open discussions regarding potential concerns, risks and areas for improvement. These records showed that issues were considered appropriately, and actions were identified to support learning and service development.

This indicated that the service promoted a culture of openness, transparency and continuous improvement, where staff were encouraged to speak up and contribute to enhancing the quality of care provided.

The service actively promoted equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff had completed equality and diversity training and demonstrated an understanding of how to apply these principles in their work. Staff told us they felt respected, valued and treated fairly regardless of their background or personal circumstances.

The provider was committed to supporting staff wellbeing and recognised individual needs within the workforce. Flexible working arrangements had been implemented where requested, helping staff to balance their work and personal commitments. The service also enabled staff to attend meetings remotely when required, ensuring they remained involved in team discussions and decision-making processes.

The service had governance, risk management and performance monitoring processes in place. Whilst these allowed the leaders to maintain oversight and the running of the service, there were a small number of areas where processes could be improved.

Audit processes were in place, but these were not always completed with sufficient structure or frequency to maximise their effectiveness. Although clinical audits were undertaken, they didn’t always have recorded outcomes, any identified learning, or actions taken in response to findings. This limited the provider's ability to evidence how governance processes were being used to drive quality improvement.

Whilst prescribing decisions appeared to be made in line with individual client needs, records did not always provide a sufficiently clear audit trail of clinical decision-making.

There were several areas of good practice. There was a clear framework of what was discussed in meetings to ensure that essential information, such as risk and complaints, was shared and discussed.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Staff took patient confidentiality and information security seriously.

Staff could access all required policies and procedures through the service’s online record system.

The service demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of working collaboratively with other organisations to ensure patients received coordinated and seamless care. Staff maintained effective working relationships with a range of healthcare professionals and external agencies, including GPs and other providers, to support the planning and delivery of care where required.

Records showed that relevant information was shared appropriately with partner organisations to support continuity of care and informed decision-making. Staff worked collaboratively with external professionals to address patients’ needs, manage risks and support positive outcomes.

Although the service was small, leaders and staff recognised the value of partnership working and sought input from other professionals when needed. This helped to ensure that patients received joined-up care and that support was delivered in a way that reflected their individual needs and circumstances.

The service shared learning and relevant information with partner organisations where appropriate, supporting continuous improvement and helping to maintain safe and effective care for clients.

At the time of the assessment, staff were not actively participating in any formal quality improvement programmes or externally recognised improvement initiatives. However, there was a clear focus on continuous learning and development within the service.

Leaders and staff demonstrated a commitment to identifying opportunities to improve the quality and efficiency of care provided. The service embraced innovative approaches to support service delivery and reduce administrative burden on clinicians. For example, the provider had implemented the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology to assist with administrative tasks, including recording meeting minutes and supporting the drafting of clinic letters from consultation notes.

Staff told us these systems helped improve efficiency, increased the time available for direct patient care and supported the accuracy and consistency of documentation. Although the service was not involved in formal quality improvement initiatives, leaders and staff were actively seeking ways to enhance processes and improve the experience and outcomes for patients through ongoing review and innovation.