Outpatient Services

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – his means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Initial assessments were comprehensive, covering psychological, emotional, and social needs.

Staff considered protected characteristics such as disability, neurodivergence, and cultural needs during assessment.

Clear referral criteria were in place, and triage systems helped allocate the right practitioner and intervention pathway.

Assessment outcomes were used to shape personalised care and therapy goals.

During the inspection, we reviewed 7 care plans. Care plans were personalised and holistic. Staff updated care plans on a regular basis and when required due to changes. They showed evidence of consideration of the physical health of the person, and appropriate referrals where necessary.

Quality Statement Score: 3

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Interventions offered were evidence-based and tailored to individual needs, including Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), trauma-informed approaches, and autism assessments.

Staff used recognised assessment tools and structured frameworks in their therapeutic work.

Clinical pathways aligned with NICE guidance, particularly in the areas of trauma and neurodevelopmental conditions.

Staff were experienced and qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the patient group.

Managers provided new staff with appropriate induction.

Managers provided staff with supervision (meetings to discuss care management, to reflect on and learn from practice, and for personal support and professional development) and appraisal of their work performance. Ninety-eight percent of staff had received supervision at the time of our assessment in line with the supervision policy.

Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge. Staff participated in regular professional development to maintain and update their professional knowledge.

Managers ensured that staff had access to regular team meetings. Staff told us they found these beneficial and supported them to do their roles. We observed a multidisciplinary team meeting where new referrals, risk issues, relational/security issues, updates on care plans/risk assessments were all discussed.

Managers ensured that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles.

Managers dealt with poor staff performance promptly and effectively. We reviewed documents in relation to a complaint regarding staff conduct and found this was robustly investigated and appropriate action taken.

Quality Statement Score: 3

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff communicated effectively within multidisciplinary teams, supported by shared care planning and clinical supervision, through a variety of methods including meetings, emails and documentation.

External partnerships with NHS trusts, Integrated Care Boards (ICB), and criminal justice services enabled coordinated input where needed.

Information-sharing protocols were in place to support safe transitions and continuity of care.

Staff reported good working relationships with colleagues across the broader St Andrew’s Healthcare provider network.

Quality Statement Score: 3

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Interventions included psychoeducation around emotional regulation, coping skills, and lifestyle choices.

Staff supported people to reflect on their own health goals and recovery journeys as part of treatment planning.

People accessing substance misuse support, veteran services, and criminal justice pathways were offered health advice specific to their needs.

Quality Statement Score: 3

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Outcomes were monitored using recognised clinical measures and pre/post intervention tools.

Staff regularly reviewed progress with people and adapted support accordingly.

The service participated in internal audit processes to review effectiveness across service types.

Themes from outcome monitoring were discussed in governance meetings to support service development.

Quality Statement Score: 3

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People gave informed consent prior to assessment or treatment, and this was documented in records.

We reviewed training records that demonstrated that 100% of staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act . Staff demonstrated to us that they understood how to apply its principles in practice and had a clear understanding of the five principles.

Where relevant, people’s capacity was assessed and best interests decisions were clearly recorded.

Staff explained the scope and limits of confidentiality at the start of therapeutic relationships.