Outpatient Services

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

Quality Statement Score: 3

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us they felt listened to, respected and safe in the care of staff.

Observations during the site visit showed staff interacting warmly and respectfully with service users.

Therapy environments were designed to promote emotional safety and comfort.

Staff gave clear and thoughtful explanations about treatment options and respected people’s decisions.

Staff understood the individual needs of people including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

Quality Statement Score: 3

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected

Care plans reflected people’s individual identities, backgrounds, and goals.

Staff considered intersectionality and neurodiversity in their therapeutic approach.

People were supported to express themselves in their own words, including through adapted communication where needed.

Staff used trauma-informed approaches that acknowledged people’s lived experiences.

The service made adjustments for patients – for example, by ensuring people’s access to premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group (for example, in easy read).

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers.

Quality Statement Score: 3

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People chose their therapy times, formats (e.g. face-to-face or virtual), and could request changes without fear of judgement.

Consent was revisited regularly, and staff respected people’s right to pause or withdraw from treatment.

Staff supported people to set their own goals and take an active role in their recovery.

Information about rights and options was clearly communicated and reinforced throughout the care process.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us they were seen in a timely way and were able to contact staff between sessions if needed.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to patients. The service had clear processes for responding to safeguarding concerns or deterioration in mental health through a system of incident reporting mechanisms and multidisciplinary meetings where risks were discussed. Family members told us that the service was very responsive in terms of support to service users and their needs.

Staff adapted session content when people were in crisis or required emotional support outside of the planned therapeutic agenda. For example, if they had received information in advance that someone was in crisis, or they arrived in crisis, staff would review the plan at the beginning of the session

Adjustments were made to accommodate accessibility, trauma triggers, and sensory preferences where needed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

staff we spoke with told us that they felt respected, supported and valued and felt positive about working for the provider and their team.

Staff had regular access to clinical supervision, reflective practice, and wellbeing check-ins.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.

The provider recognised staff success within the service. For example, one staff member had been nominated for a care award and this was celebrated in a meeting we observed during our visit. Positive feedback received was shared with staff members.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.

Managers maintained oversight of caseloads to prevent burnout and ensure safe practice. For example, we observed a meeting where leaders considered the workloads of staff when allocating further work.