Archived: Schoen Clinic Chelsea

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

At our last assessment we rated responsive as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. The design, layout, and furnishings of the service supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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.

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.

Patients told us they were supported to understand their condition (including any associated risks and benefits) and were involved in planning their care.

People who use services and those close to them (including carers and dependants) were regularly involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment. Patients were supported to attend family therapy sessions where required.

Patients we spoke with confirmed they were involved and empowered in all aspects of decision making relating to their care and treatment.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care. The capacity of patients to make decisions was always considered in multidisciplinary discussions.

Patients told us there was flexibility when booking appointments. They could arrange appointments around work, school schedules, holidays and personal commitments. Patients said appointments could be rearranged and the clinic was responsive in accommodating their needs.

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.

Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately. Carers told us that they were well supported by the service. One patient gave an example of how their partner joined consultations so that they understood what support the patient required. Family therapy was provided as appropriate.

The service experienced high demand for ADHD and CAMHS assessments and increased its number of adult and paediatric clinicians to meet this need. This demonstrated the service’s ability to adapt to changing demands in mental health needs.

Staff communicated with patients’ GPs when they were being discharged from the service. For example, we saw letters sent to GPs outlining the follow up care that was required from them.

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.

Staff made the relevant notifications to external bodies such as the Care Quality Commission when incidents occurred and had policies and procedures in place to support staff.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. The service had a comprehensive website, brochures and leaflets in the main reception area of the clinic.

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.

Patients told us they were given information on how to make a complaint or raise concerns. They felt comfortable and confident raising complaints directly with the clinic director or clinician if needed.

The service provided information on how to make a complaint or provide feedback in the service brochure, complaints leaflet and website. Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them.

The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them, learned lessons from the results, and shared these with the whole team and wider service. Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings.

When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback. For example, a patient told us they had raised concerns about their billing, and this had been quickly resolved following a phone call with the clinic director.

Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service. Staff told us complaints were discussed in morning meetings, clinical governance, supervision and staff meetings and this information was used to inform patient care.

The service used compliments to learn, celebrate success and improve the quality of care. The service collected compliments they received from patients either during or at the end of treatment. Examples included ‘We are really impressed by the (eating disorder consultant) expertise and knowledge, ‘Thank you for everything so far. You have been kind, professional and a huge help by providing me with much needed reassurance’ (parent of a young person).

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.

The service accepted patients after conducting a thorough assessment, to determine if their needs could be met. The service was accessible to patients with disabilities. There was a lift available and fire evacuation chairs for the stairs in an emergency.

The service had access to interpreters when required. Written information could also be translated if a patient’s first language was not English, but this was not required for the current patient group.

Patients could access the service in a way that suited their needs, either in person or virtually. Appointment times were flexible to accommodate both clinicians’ and patients’ availability. For virtual appointments, patients were required to attend their first session in person so staff could confirm their identity.

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 if needed.

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

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. They told us they understood the risks of discrimination and inequality that could affect diverse patient groups and worked to ensure fair access to care and support. 100% of staff had received and completed training in equality, diversity and human rights.

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.

Where appropriate, staff supported patients to consider longer term decisions about their care, treatment and discharge. Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings.

Staff ensure all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies are involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. The service collaborated with other psychiatric services and NHS hospitals as required.