The Sloane Court Clinic

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

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

This is the first inspection for this service where a rating has been applied. This key question has been rated as good.

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

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patients told us they were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning their care needs. One patient told us a doctor gave them a range of treatment options, and they were able to make an informed decision about which treatment they preferred.

Staff referred patients to external services to support their individual needs. For example, a substance misuse advice group specifically for neurodivergent people.

Patients told us there was flexibility when booking appointments, meaning they could arrange their appointments around their work schedules and personal events.

The service had recently implemented clinical interest groups. The current groups were neurodiversity, women’s health, psychiatric psychotherapy and eating disorders. The psychiatric psychotherapy and eating disorder groups were paused due to staff availability. In these meetings staff came together to discuss specific matters, innovation and new ideas related to the group’s agenda. They discussed real life cases and evidence-based practice. They also used these groups to inform the service of what would be beneficial for their patient group. For example, sourcing external dietitians and cardiologist for their patients with eating disorders.

Staff worked together with other services and clinicians to meet the needs of their patients. We saw examples of staff referring patients to gastroenterology specialists, and kept in regular communication.

The service saw around 2000 patients per year. Waiting times for general assessment appointments was around 2 weeks. Waiting times for ADHD assessments were 2-8 weeks, depending on the funding route. We saw one example where a patient was seen by another clinician for a general assessment and support whilst awaiting their ADHD assessment appointments.

The service offered appointments in the evening, as well as some appointments on Saturday mornings. Whilst the service did not have out of hours crisis support, they did have a telephone answer message with external supportive telephone numbers listed. The answer message also had an option to speak with a clinician if needed.

The service did not have a policy around documenting demographics related to their patient group. Collecting this information would support the service to understand their patients’ needs and improve the quality of care offered to their patients by understanding and identifying health inequalities.

The service had thought carefully about how to develop appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs and their patient group.

The service’s website had clear information on what treatments were offered, which clinicians offered the service and how much the appointments would cost. They regularly updated their frequently asked questions based on the questions and feedback the service received.

Patients received emails before their appointments with useful links and information, such as what to expect from their session and crisis support information.

The service spent time making a number of videos for their website. These videos were made by clinicians and covered a range of topics. For example, what to expect from your therapy sessions, what to do if you want to stop your medication, some self-help ADHD resources and information on postpartum psychosis.

The service created a bionic reading format version of their key online material regarding the ADHD service. This view has the first few letters of each word in bold, which some neurodivergent people find easier to read.

Service managers reviewed the number of website visits and searches. They noted a number of people had been searching for ‘anger’ on their website. In response to this, clinicians made videos where they discussed what anger was and ways to manage it.

The waiting area had information displayed, such as health and wellbeing, the chaperone policy and how to give feedback.

Clinicians at the service were able to speak a number of languages. The service was able to access interpreters for patients when needed. The service’s website was able to be viewed in a number of languages.

The electronic record system was secure. Only those clinicians working with a patient were able to view their notes. The video platform used to have online appointments was secure, and these calls were not recorded.

The service was registered with the information commissioner’s office as appropriate.

Patients told us they knew how to complain, if they needed to.

In the last 12 months the service had not received any formal complaints. In this time, they had received 2 informal complaints and 2 online reviews. The concerns raised were related to delays in offering appointments and a patient wanted more time to complete their registration form. One informal complaint did not relate to this service. The service looked into these concerns and responded to the patients with their findings.

Changes were made as a result of patient feedback. For example, the service was more transparent with their patients that appointments lasted 50 minutes, after receiving a complaint that the session did not last 1 hour. This was to allow clinicians time to update their records.

When complaints or concerns were received regarding particular clinicians, there was increased monitoring of their work and more regular meetings were planned with managers for support.

Patients were able to access the service in a way that met their needs, such as in person or virtually. Appointment times were flexible depending on the clinicians and the patients’ availability.

The service had low waiting times to access appointments.

There was no crisis pathway at this service, and patients were directed to local community crisis services or emergency departments.

The service made reasonable adjustments for patients when needed, such as using a ground floor room for appointments for those with mobility issues, providing summary bullet points from appointments for a patient who found this helpful, and having information in bionic reading format for neurodivergent patients.

Feedback from patients was positive. Patients told us staff treated people with respect and without discrimination.

Staff within the service promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt able to give their views. Patients we spoke with said they would speak to the clinician or a service manager if they had any concerns.

The senior management team looked at barriers to care, support and treatment, and were aware that online services were not suitable for complex or severe mental health conditions. They had a suitability criteria, which was reviewed when patients were referred into the service. If a patient could not be safely managed by the service, they would be contacted with an explanation, as well as contact information for more suitable services.

Where appropriate, staff supported patients to consider longer term decisions about their care and treatment.

Older adult psychiatrists carried out and recorded capacity assessments when needed. One of these assessments was carried out to support a patient to create a living will.

Staff ensured relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. For example, staff included dieticians, gastroenterologists, GPs and substance misuse services when needed.