Psymplicity Healthcare

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 looked for evidence that service 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 for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Leaders demonstrated a clear understanding of the service, the people using it and the challenges affecting delivery. They were receptive to feedback and used information from governance processes to review performance and identify opportunities for improvement.

Governance arrangements provided oversight of clinical, operational and organisational risks. The provider maintained a broad programme of audits and monitored areas including prescribing, safeguarding, complaints, incidents, workforce compliance and organisational risks. Leaders tracked actions arising from audits and monitored progress against improvement actions.

Staff described the organisation as supportive and collaborative. They reported feeling able to raise concerns, seek advice and contribute ideas for improvement. Staff survey findings were positive and indicated confidence in leadership and speaking-up arrangements.

The provider used audit findings, feedback, complaints and risk management processes to support learning and improvement and worked collaboratively with partner organisations involved in people's care and treatment.

However, some governance and reporting arrangements remained under development. As a result, leaders continued to rely on manual review in some areas and could not always obtain consistent assurance through established reporting systems alone, reducing the consistency of oversight in those areas.

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.

Leaders described a culture focused on continuous improvement and the delivery of safe, effective care. Information reviewed during the assessment demonstrated that leaders routinely reviewed performance and identified opportunities to strengthen service delivery.

The June 2026 staff survey showed positive staff experience. Eleven of 12 respondents rated the organisation 5 out of 5 overall and 1 respondent rated it 4 out of 5. Staff described the organisation as supportive, collaborative and patient focused, reflecting a shared understanding of the organisation's culture and values.

During the assessment, leaders demonstrated a clear understanding of the people using the service, the pathways provided and the operational challenges affecting delivery. Their responses were consistent with the evidence reviewed during the assessment and reflected awareness of the areas being monitored through governance and oversight processes.

Leaders were receptive to feedback and engaged positively with assessment findings. Where issues were identified, discussions demonstrated a willingness to reflect on practice and consider opportunities to strengthen systems and processes.

Information reviewed during the assessment showed examples of leaders engaging directly with staff where operational, governance or workforce concerns arose. Records demonstrated leaders balancing organisational requirements with individual circumstances, including discussions regarding service capacity, workforce availability following bereavement, support needs and compliance with clinical governance expectations. The evidence showed leaders sought to address concerns through discussion, support and agreed actions before considering further management measures.

Staff described a culture where concerns, questions and suggestions could be raised through day-to-day management arrangements. They told us managers were approachable and that they would feel comfortable speaking up if they identified concerns affecting people using the service, colleagues or the organisation.

The June 2026 staff survey showed that all 12 respondents felt safe to raise concerns and believed they would be listened to if they did so.

The provider had Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblowing) arrangements that described routes for escalating concerns and the protections available to people raising concerns in good faith.

The provider had an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy that applied to employees, workers and contractors. The policy set out expectations relating to equality of opportunity, inclusive working practices and the management of discrimination concerns.

Equality, diversity and inclusion formed part of mandatory workforce training requirements. Staff were expected to promote inclusive behaviours and challenge conduct that was inconsistent with organisational expectations.

The provider's policy described routes for raising concerns relating to discrimination and the arrangements for reviewing and responding to concerns where they arose.

The provider had governance arrangements to oversee clinical, operational and organisational performance. These included a programme of audits covering clinical care, prescribing, clinical risk, workforce governance, health and safety, information governance, business continuity and corporate risk management. Audit records showed 48 audit areas were subject to routine review through quarterly, six-monthly or annual cycles, depending on the area being reviewed.

Governance arrangements extended beyond direct clinical activity and included oversight of financial performance, workforce capacity, operational resilience, information governance, data integrity, information technology risks and business continuity. A six-monthly risk register and business continuity audit reviewed organisational risks against operational, workforce, governance and financial information and concluded that risks remained appropriately controlled during the period reviewed.

The provider maintained systems for monitoring key areas of service delivery and organisational risk. Governance records demonstrated oversight of prescribing activity, safeguarding, complaints, patient feedback, incidents, workforce compliance and organisational risks. Evidence reviewed indicated these areas were subject to regular review through established governance arrangements.

However, some governance and reporting arrangements remained under development at the time of the assessment. As a result, leaders could not always obtain consistent assurance through established reporting systems and continued to rely on manual review in some areas.

The provider worked with organisations involved in people's wider care and treatment pathways. We received feedback from 1 referring organisation during the assessment. The organisation reported receiving patient updates within agreed timescales and described the provider's communication and joint working with other organisations as effective.

The stakeholder described examples of the provider working collaboratively when people required additional support or onward referral and responding appropriately when concerns were raised. They described an occasion when an appointment was cancelled in error. After the concern was raised, the provider reinstated the appointment immediately and the issue did not recur. This helped support continuity of care and reduced the risk of unnecessary delays to people's care and treatment.

The provider used audit findings, complaints reviews, patient feedback and risk management processes to identify opportunities for learning and improvement. Leaders reviewed information from these sources through governance processes and used it to update policies, guidance and working practices where improvements were identified.

Audit records showed that leaders monitored actions arising from audits through subsequent review cycles and tracked progress against agreed improvement actions. This helped provide assurance that issues identified through governance processes were followed through and reviewed over time.