Anna Freud Centre

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

This means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment of this service, we rated this key question as Good.
This is the first rating of the service at this current location. This key question has remained Good.
This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The provider 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.

In all five care plans we reviewed, we found that children and young people had fully comprehensive plans that reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including needs linked to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.
The service met its target times for seeing families, children and young people are triaged appropriately and timely, moving from referral to assessment and from assessment to treatment within two weeks of screening, ensuring timely access to support.
Care planning took account of individual needs and preferences and promoted empowerment and shared decision-making. The service provided information in a variety of accessible formats to help children and young people understand their care, including age-appropriate care plans with illustrations, diagrams and simple language. Parents told us they received clear information about appointments, such as details and accessing the building, the clinician they would see, and what to expect during the session.
Parents said they were given explanations of therapy options, such as family-based approaches, where each family member can access therapy separately. Parents said this information was useful and personalised to their needs. This meant children, young people and families were well-prepared, well-informed and actively involved in their care, supporting positive engagement and improving overall treatment outcomes.

The provider 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 demonstrated a clear understanding of the diverse health and care needs of children, young people and their local communities, ensuring that care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The service operated in accordance with the Children Act 1989, Working Together to Safeguard Children (statutory guidance), and relevant NICE clinical guidelines. We saw evidence of this within service audits; for example, the Clinical Evaluation Team had oversight of outcome-measure use and evidence-based delivery through the People’s Outcome Data (POD) system, introduced in January 2024, which has shown 75% positive cases and confirmed increased utilisation, with over 50% of recorded outcomes now entered into the system. The service ensured adherence to local commissioning standards, equality legislation and safeguarding frameworks, and maintained full compliance with data protection requirements, including UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

We also saw evidence of multi-agency collaboration with statutory services such as Social Care and CAMHS, supporting integrated, system-wide working that met safeguarding standards and promoted effective inter-agency coordination. This was further strengthened by the Schools and Colleges Early Support Service (SCESS), which works with 30 schools and colleges to ensure students aged 11–25 receive timely and appropriate mental health support. The service provides one-to-one sessions for students as well as support for staff, parents and carers, alongside clinical division and court referral assessments, ensuring a comprehensive and responsive pathway across multiple agencies.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People could access information and advice that was accurate, up to date, and provided in a way they could understand and that met their communication needs. For example, the service provided age-appropriate materials for children and young people, including easy-read leaflets, visual aids, simplified care plans, and translated documents for families who required them. Interpreters were available when needed, and staff adapted communication methods such as using drawing, symbols or plain English to ensure understanding.

People using the service, along with their families, friends and carers, were provided with information that was accessible, safe and secure and that supported their rights and choices. For example, parents received welcome packs with details about the service, treatment options, how to raise concerns, and how to access advocacy. Young people could scan a QR code in reception to give anonymous feedback or request further support, and staff ensured that digital information was shared securely in line with data protection requirements.

This meant that children, young people and their families were consistently well-informed, able to make meaningful decisions about their care, and empowered to participate actively in their treatment and wider support.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Staff consistently supported young people to be actively involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The service embedded the Lundy participation approach, enabling meaningful and inclusive involvement of both young people and their parents. The service consistently reflected all four principles of the Lundy Model—Space, Voice, Influence and Audience—ensuring children and young people had safe and accessible opportunities to participate, were supported to express their views freely, had their views taken seriously and used to inform decisions, and were assured their views were shared with, and considered by, decision-makers. Two parents with lived experience had taken part in the participation process and contributed to service development. The team also delivered parent webinars and gathered feedback on how care was provided. For example, the service implemented changes to presentation slides to better reflect young people’s views, including using clear language and avoiding acronyms. This ensured that young people’s voices directly influenced how the service was delivered.

In addition to paper feedback forms, people could use a QR code available at reception to provide feedback. This made it easy for young people and parents to share their views, suggest ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, or support.
The service demonstrates a robust and responsive approach to complaints management, treating complaints as an important mechanism for continuous service improvement. This ensures that learning from complaints is shared and embedded across the workforce, improving service quality and patient experience. People told us they felt confident that any complaint or concern would be explored thoroughly and that they would receive a timely response, as complaints were handled in an open and transparent way with no repercussions for raising issues.
At the time of this assessment, there were no overdue complaints recorded in the complaints log provided. This reflects timely and effective resolution practices.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service ensured equity in access so that children, young people and their families could access the service when they needed it and receive the right care in a timely way. There were clear and established processes for referral and triage, consistent with best practice, which enabled staff to redirect or return inappropriate referrals quickly with clear feedback, and where possible, signpost families to more appropriate resources. We reviewed the service’s referral acceptance criteria, turnaround times and feedback processes and found them to be robust and consistently applied. This was usually within two weeks.

The leadership team monitored the number of cases per year for each team in relation to staffing numbers and clinical hours per week, providing a clear overview of how services were managing demand. For example, the Schools and Colleges Early Support Service (SCESS) remained responsive and flexible to the needs of young people, offering equitable access and outcomes for all. The service also delivered psychoeducation webinars to parents and carers, provided training to staff, and offered direct consultation to both families and education settings.
SCESS supported 36 schools and colleges during this academic year and operated on a term-time basis only, managing an average of 350 cases per year. The team consisted of 16 staff members, with an average of 29.75 clinical hours per week, enabling the service to maintain safe, effective and timely support for children and young people.

The service also maintained accessible premises and made reasonable adjustments to support children and young people with additional needs, including those who required sensory-friendly spaces or alternative communication formats. Emergency and unplanned care access pathways were clearly defined, including out-of-hours arrangements, ensuring families knew how to seek help in urgent situations.

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.

We reviewed the patients’ Experience of Service Questionnaire (ESQ) report for September 2024 to August 2025, which included 54 responses, 2% from children aged 9–11, 17% from young people aged 12–18, and 81% from parents or carers. The feedback showed strong themes of trust, empathy, communication and emotional support across all groups, with a significant increase in ESQ data collection compared with previous years.

Although direct feedback from children and young people remained limited, this highlighted an area for development. While experiences were overwhelmingly positive, young people suggested making therapy rooms feel warmer and less clinical, considering adjustments for neurodiverse or sensory-sensitive individuals, and reviewing toys to ensure they are appropriate for all ages. These insights informed ongoing service and strategic planning as the service strengthened its feedback mechanisms and embedded the Lundy Model of Participation.

A young ambassador we spoke with told us how their involvement in the Learning Walk Project had directly influenced changes to the service environment. For example, the staffing board at reception was lowered so that it was at a more comfortable height for children and young people to see and read. This helped ensure that information was accessible to all and supported greater equity in experiences and outcomes, as young people’s feedback was actively used to shape the environment in a way that met their needs. This meant children, young people and their families experienced timely, fair and appropriate access to support, reducing delays in care and helping ensure their needs were met in the most suitable setting.

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.
People were supported to plan for important life changes, including discharge, through a holistic and responsive approach that reflected their individual circumstances, preferences and what mattered to them. Staff ensured personalised care plans were developed collaboratively and shared with relevant professionals to support continuity of care. For example, staff worked with young people to prepare step-down plans that included school reintegration strategies, community support options, and crisis contacts, and they arranged joint meetings with external agencies such as CAMHS, social care or school pastoral teams, when additional support was needed.
This responsive approach meant children, young people and their families had enough time, information and support to make informed decisions about their future, ensuring a smoother and more confident transition out of the service.