14 Harley Street

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 was our first inspection of the service and we rated this 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.

Records showed that staff engaged with patients and their friends and families (where appropriate) to develop support plans that met their needs and ensured they had the relevant information needed to make informed decisions about their care.

Patients reported that they felt supported, informed and involved with their treatment decisions and care planning. All patients we spoke with reported they had discussed their plan of care and were happy with it.

In the records we reviewed we saw patients’ voice highlighting what they wanted from their treatment.
Following feedback from previous satisfaction surveys, the service had kept the time for a new assessment to 120 minutes, instead of shortening it. The feedback received had been positive about this length of time for a new assessment appointment and, and that it underlined the value to patients of having personalised care and the time to be heard. 

The service had a very clear scope of practice and understood the needs of its patient group. If needed, the service could refer patients to other external services to support areas out of scope of this service. 

The consultant psychiatrist understood their role and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and associated Code of Practice. The consultant psychiatrist had previously undergone comprehensive training and demonstrated clear knowledge of the Act. Due to the scope of practice, referrals for people subject to treatment under the Mental Health Act, including those on community treatment orders, did not sit within the acceptance criteria for the service.

Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient. Staff showed a good understanding of patient’s needs, circumstances and goals.

We saw that the service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs.

The service could support and make adjustments for people with disabilities, communication needs or other specific needs. For example, correspondence was provided electronically by default, and large print or verbal explanation could be provided on request.

The service had a website that gave a lot of information about what the service delivered and who the staff were. This included photographs of staff.

The service asked patients for feedback about their care after every appointment and did this using technology to make it as easy as possible for people. The service had 16 reviews where patients stated they had received ‘great care, understanding, compassionate outstanding care and that life has improved exponentially since starting sessions. At the time of our inspection, the service was in the process of developing a survey surrounding patient satisfaction.  

The service had received no formal complaints within the last 12 months. However, there were appropriate systems and processes in place to ensure any concerns and complaints were treated seriously, investigated and any lessons learned would be shared with the whole team.

Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them.

Patients, relatives and carers we spoke with knew how to complain or raise concerns.

The service was easy to access. The service offered pre-booked appointments at a range of different times to meet the needs of patients including evenings. The service did not offer walk in appointments and did not operate on a 24-hour basis. The service responded quickly to any enquiries or requests for appointments. 

The service had a clear scope of practice and only accepted referrals for patients whose needs it could meet safely. 

The service had a location accessible for people with physical disabilities.

Patients had flexibility and choice in the appointment times available. All patients we spoke to said that the service was always quick to respond to their requests for appointments. Appointments ran on time.

The service was aware of the importance of equity in experience and outcomes. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the challenges and potential inequalities faced by vulnerable groups, including people from LGBTQ+ communities and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. 

The provider ensured that policies, procedures and service delivery did not disadvantage people with protected characteristics and promoted equitable access to care and treatment.

Patients stated that they felt that they were able to raise any concerns and how to do this. 

The consultant psychiatrist supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment, considering their current goals and future. These were recorded in patient records. 

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.