Archived: Dr J & Colleagues

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 changed to Requires Improvement: This meant people's needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Not all care records fully reflected peoples physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. We reviewed 12 care records and found inconsistencies in the quality of assessments. For example, the service did not have a standardised report template to structure ADHD assessments to ensure that the report provided a comprehensive psychosocial assessment. Some records did not evidence information from external partners in line with guidance, for example, the service did not always gather information from schools or involve schools in any post-diagnostic reasonable adjustments for young people. However, we observed an ADHD assessment where the clinician conducted a full clinical and psychosocial assessment which was centred around them and their needs. A person told us that, " The guidance provided by Dr. J and the team has empowered me to better understand my ASD and ADHD, enabling me to address my challenges holistically".

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity. Leaders told us that services are offered to people through the NHS right to choose initiative which aims to give people greater choice and control over how they receive their healthcare. The provider actively collaborated with local farming groups to enhance access for marginalized communities in the area. They also partnered with both local and national businesses to strengthen support systems for employees with neurodiverse needs.

The provider did not always have appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to meet individual needs. The service told us that they did not currently provide patient information leaflets in multiple languages or accessible formats, such as easy-read versions. However, the provider had an accessible information standards policy and leaders were committed to implementing measures to address this gap.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People were able to provide feedback after every assessment via an online form. We reviewed a compliments and complaints log, which showed that when concerns were raised people were kept informed via outcome letters. However, the complaints policy did not have information about the NHS complaints process in line with guidance.

The provider did not always make sure that everyone could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider offered a hybrid access model nationally; meaning people could opt to have their assessment conducted in the comfort of their own home via telemedicine or by coming to the clinic in Lincoln. Feedback showed that some people would have preferred a face-to-face appointment, however the distance to travel made this unfeasible. People also told us that their treatment had been disrupted because the providers contract with local integrated care boards had changed, meaning they no longer had access to the care under the NHS. We were not assured that the provider had robust processes in place to ensure continuity of care under these circumstances.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Children are offered time to meet on a 1:1 basis by clinicians at the service and there is timely access compared to public sector services. Staff received training in equity, diversity and human rights. This was observed in practice.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.