Outpatient Services

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

Responsive - this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

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.

Care plans and therapy goals were shaped in partnership with each person. For example, we reviewed a care plan for a person who was being discharged out of hospital with the support of the ATS team. The care plan considered discharge planning, mental health and recovery, accessing activities in the community and housing.

Staff understood and worked with people's life experiences, including trauma, neurodiversity, and cultural identity.

People were given time and space to explore issues at their own pace, with flexibility built into the model of care.

Therapeutic interventions were adapted to ensure that they remained relevant and meaningful to the individual.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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 maintained clear and consistent communication with referring professionals, including NHS trusts, ICBs, and probation services.

Transitions into and out of the service were well-managed, with summaries and recommendations shared promptly.

Staff ensured that care did not end abruptly and worked with individuals to agree appropriate discharge planning.

Service users accessing multiple pathways (e.g. veterans or autism assessments) experienced seamless coordination between internal and external partners.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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.

Information about therapy options, consent, confidentiality and complaints was given in written and verbal formats.

People were signposted to external resources where appropriate, including charities and peer support groups.

Adjustments were made to how information was shared, including use of visual prompts, simplified text, or preferred communication methods.

Staff checked understanding regularly and encouraged people to ask questions throughout their care.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard.

The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group (for example, in easy-read form).

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients.

Staff ensured carers and families were regularly updated about the patient’s progress.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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.

Feedback was collected through surveys and follow-up conversations at the end of therapy sessions.

People told us they felt heard and that their suggestions had been taken seriously.

Staff adapted approaches based on feedback, including changes to room layout and scheduling flexibility.

Service user views informed planning for future service development and delivery.

Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns. The service had received 3 complaints in the previous 12 months and 17 compliments. Themes of compliments included staff conduct, outcomes for patients and quality of care.

When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback.

Staff protected patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately.

Staff received feedback on the outcome of the investigation of complaints and the service acted on the findings to ensure learning was embedded and lessons were learnt.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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 planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers/co-ordinators.

Outreach and referral pathways included provision for underserved groups, such as veterans and people in the criminal justice system.

Reasonable adjustments were made to support people who required flexibility around attendance or engagement style.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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 and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

The provider recognised that their current policies currently aligned with inpatient settings and had a plan to review their policies in line with service planning to ensure they reflected the nature of the work provided as an outpatient service.

At the time of our inspection, 97% of staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

Quality Statement Score: 3

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, including at the end of their life.

Discharge planning was a collaborative process that began early in the therapeutic journey.

People were supported to transition to other services or community resources when appropriate.

Staff helped people reflect on achievements and areas for continued growth as therapy progressed.

Documentation reflected forward-looking goals, and people were invited to revisit their plans during review points. We reviewed 4 discharge plans which were developed collaboratively and with a focus on linking people into appropriate community support.

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