Old Orchard Consulting Rooms

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

The service had now reviewed and improved its policies which were up to date and appropriately tailored to the service provided. It had also now improved its systems for assessing environmental risk and documenting performance and outcomes.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

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.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture.

Staff were aware of the service’s visions and values and how they applied to their roles and responsibilities. Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about changes within the service.

Leaders were planning a change of registered manager to reflect a forthcoming retirement, and this was reflected in the service’s succession plan.

All the staff we spoke with were committed to providing a high-quality service and were proud of the positive feedback received from people.

The service had inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

People typically contacted the service to consult with a named clinician. The clinicians were consultant-level specialists who were listed on the relevant GMC specialist registers. They provided information about their professional training, qualifications, any research interests and membership of professional bodies on the service website. Clinicians had been granted practising privileges by other CQC-registered independent providers and were recognised in their specialist areas by major UK health insurers.

Staff told us leaders in the service were approachable and responded to any concerns raised.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service had established Freedom to Speak up arrangements within the service. Staff were aware of how to raise concerns including to external bodies if necessary.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Policies and procedures to promote diversity and equality were in place. There had been no concerns raised related to unfair discrimination either relating to staff or people using the service. Reasonable adjustments had been made to ensure staff were able to work effectively, for example by introducing more flexible working hours.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They had improved systems to identify and respond to information about risk, performance and outcomes and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership when appropriate. For example, to share relevant information with people’s usual GP (with consent) or in relation to people at risk of abuse.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the wider clinical pathways and specialisms.

Service development was driven by a focus on improving the experience and satisfaction with outcomes.