ABBI Clinic Manchester

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Good.

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

We make sure people are at the centre of their care and treatment choices and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

During the admission process to the service, when the nurse met with the patient, discussions took place about what would work best for the patient. For example, we saw for one patient their meal plan was written out weekly which was their preference.

Care plans included individual preferences of patients. For example, we saw a care record for a patient who preferred visual information and found that a virtual tour of the service had been provided to the patient prior to attending the service.

The service followed the PEACE pathway (PEACE is a Pathway for Eating disorders and Autism developed from Clinical Experience.). Resources could be downloaded for use and blogs shared clinical experiences of supporting autistic people with an eating disorder.

Patients provided feedback about the service through co production meetings, one-to-one appointments with their clinician, feedback questionnaires, and a feedback box.

We understand the diverse health and care needs of people and our local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

The service had identified a day patient provision for people with an eating disorder was a gap in service provision.

The staff team were very knowledgeable and experienced in eating disorder treatment. They had worked in a variety of services for people with an eating disorder and had accessed a variety of training relevant to the service, for example family therapy.

The team liaised with other services involved in patients care including community eating disorder services.

The service worked creatively to use local resources in the community to support therapeutic work with patients. For example, the service was located close to a supermarket and staff used this to support patients with exposure work.

If patients consented, family members could attend the therapy appointments with them.

We provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed, including CQC statutory notifications.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Staff had individual accounts for the electronic care record system.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Assessments included patients’ communication preferences and reasonable adjustments staff should make to achieve these.

The patient welcome information booklet included what to expect in the service and a link to all the resources within the shared drive. Patients could access the resources to recap on sessions and for support and guidance outside of the sessions.

There was an easy read guide to the group at the service and easy read worksheets were available.

The service had identified and had access to an interpreting service when required.

If patients consented, families and carers were updated on the progress of patients treatment. The service also offered a family and carers support group.

We make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

The service had received 1 formal complaint and 6 informal complaints in the 12 months prior to the inspection. The informal complaints were all resolved locally. The formal complaint was open at the time of the inspection and had not been determined if it would be upheld or not.

Patients told us they knew how to complain or raise concerns.

Feedback was shared directly with patients and through the ‘you said, we did’ posters within the service and co-production meetings.

Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigations of complaints and acted on the findings. Feedback was shared through team meetings and the internal quality bulletin.

The service had received a complaint about a patient being able to access more of their care record than intended. This resulted in the improvement to the electronic care record to ensure patients could only access the relevant section of their record. Further actions were underway to upgrade to a different electronic care record system to further improve the experience for patients.

The service received 50 compliments in the 12 months prior to the inspection. These related to the staff, service delivered and the environment.

We make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met. The service was on the ground floor, had ground level access to all rooms, and an accessible toilet.

Patients had fed back that due to their sensory sensitivities, the lighting was too bright in the service. Staff had responded by adding subdued coloured covers to the lights to improve the experience for patients. Another patient found the groups too difficult to join, therefore the service offered one-to-one instead and this was accepted and worked well.

There was a selection of fidget items available in the day service for patients to use during the sessions to support with their focus and engagement in the treatment.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with community teams. A discharge summary was also shared with the patients GP.

We actively seek out and listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We tailor the care, support and treatment in response to this.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff within the service promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Feedback was welcomed and feedback opportunities included satisfaction surveys, a feedback box, co-production group and one-to-one sessions with staff.

The ‘you said, we did’ poster showed the improvements to the service following feedback from patients. This included a microphone and monitor to improve the remote offer for patients, and removing strong smells from the environment, for example reed diffusers, to enable patients with sensory sensitives to engage fully with the treatment.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of most of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. We reviewed 7 policies, 2 of which did not include an equality impact assessment, they were safeguarding adults and supervision policies.

Staff had received training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights, with 100% compliance.

We support people to plan for important life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings. This included reasonable adjustments regarding communication preferences.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant teams were informed of the discharge plan for patients.

The service ensured that patients had one-to-one sessions with clinicians to identify goals, review progress and agree when to progress with their treatment.

Content of the groups included topics that were helpful for patients to plan for the future when they were discharged from the service. Topics included “cope ahead for crisis”, “traffic light system for symptoms”, “behaviours”, “feelings”, “thoughts and strategies”, “support and self care activities”. These aimed at preparing patients to develop their knowledge, sharing resources that they could access in the future.