Baskind Health

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

Patients could self-refer and were responsible for funding their treatment directly or through health insurance. The number of patients on the provider’s caseload was well managed. The provider did not keep a waiting list. Patients could attend the service either in person or virtually and reasonable adjustments were made to support equity in experience and outcomes. Patients were provided information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they could understand, and which met their communication needs. Patients were encouraged to give feedback, which was acted on and used to deliver improvements. The service worked with partners to ensure patients could move to shared care when this was available and what they wanted.

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.

Patients said they were at the centre of their treatment. Patients valued the understanding of their condition they gained from the assessment process and understood the care and treatment options available (including any associated risks and benefits). They said care was holistic and individualised and they could ask questions which were answered.

The provider told us how they delivered person centred, individualised care. For example, adapting medication dependent on a patient’s working pattern, or menstrual cycle.

The assessment team observed patients and those close to them were involved in reviewing, planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment. Staff responded to any relevant changes in their needs.

Care plans fully reflected the physical, mental, emotional and social needs of patients. The service used an online booking service so that patients could choose appointments at times which worked for them.

Although patients did not feedback about this quality statement specifically when we spoke to them, there were several examples within the patient surveys and reviews of the service supporting patients to establish shared care systems as quickly as possible.

The provider ensured they could meet the needs of the patients under their care and took appointments up to three months in advance. The service was flexible and supported shared care where this was accepted. When shared care was not available, patients remained with the service to ensure there was continuity in their care and treatment.

Partners had no specific feedback on this area.

The service was an independent clinic and patients could self-refer. Appointments were rarely cancelled.

Patients said that communication was tailored to meet their needs. They said email communication was well-structured and “written in a way that would make it easy for neurodiverse people to understand.”

Patients were provided information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they could understand, and which met their communication needs. The questionnaires used in the clinic were accessible on both mobile devices and computers. The provider empowered patients to complete their own questionnaires and developed care based on these.

The service used an online information service that provided comprehensive information on medicines. This included presenting information in different formats, for example large print or easy read versions, different languages and the option for the information to be read aloud. The service could access translators if these were needed.

Patients said they were involved in decisions about their treatment. Patients felt confident to discuss concerns and that they were “always listened to.” Patients said their loved ones were included in conversations when it was important to them.

The provider developed care plans during each review. These involved two-way discussions. The provider signposted patients and carers to advocacy and specialist ADHD support services.

The assessment team observed four review sessions. The provider actively listened to patients during these sessions and involved patients in their care and treatment. Family members were given a voice and involved during the session with the consent of the patient.

There had been no complaints since the service opened. However, the service actively sought feedback from patients using surveys and reviews. The results of these were overwhelmingly positive.

Patients said the initial assessment process was straight forward and the provider made adjustments to accommodate their needs. However, one patient noted that the appointments had been fully booked initially. They contacted the provider who was able to arrange an appointment for them.

The service was a paid for service, available to anybody over the age of 18. The patient group came from different backgrounds and ethnic groups. The provider ensured patients had access to post treatment support via support groups and ensured shared care arrangements were in place where possible.

Partners had no specific feedback on this area.

The service could admit a limited number of patients to the programme as there were only two clinicians, one of whom worked part time. Nevertheless, there were no concerns about accessibility to the service and prospective patients could book up to 3 months in advance.

Although patients did not feedback about this quality statement specifically, patient experience was overwhelmingly positive across all areas.

The service had treated around 120 patients since registration. The provider used continuous ratings scales to monitor individual outcomes.

The service complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

Patients said they were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care. They said they were supported to move to shared care when this was available and what they wanted.

There were no concerns around planning for the future.

Care records demonstrate ongoing discussion around management of ADHD symptoms. Shared care arrangements were in place where possible.