Baskind Health

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

The service provided safe care and had a culture of openness and collaboration. The clinic environment was clean and well maintained. The provider assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The provider had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. Patients were supported to make choices that balance risks of harm with positive choices about their lives.

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 told us they felt safe and did not raise any concerns about the learning culture in the service.

The provider could demonstrate that there was a culture of learning and gave examples of learning from safeguarding, and changes to prescribing templates. They learnt from feedback and from conducting audits. They linked in with other ADHD specialists to share information, for example up to date prescribing. During the onsite assessment, the assessment team saw an apology email. This included a detailed and sincere written apology.

There was an up-to-date duty of candour policy in place which was detailed and subject to regular review. The provider could give examples of when they had to apologise when things had gone wrong, for example delays in medication.

Although patients did not feedback about this quality statement specifically when interviewed, there were numerous examples and positive comments about shared care within the patient surveys and reviews. For example, "Helping with transition back into the NHS. Putting through onto shared care systems as quickly as possible. Prescriptions etc.” and “willing to be flexible and collaborate with other healthcare colleagues at a distance to ensure patient safety and continuity of care.”

Staff ensured they had regular appointments with patients. The systems described demonstrated patients received continuity of care. Patients followed a clear ADHD pathway and the provider used outcome measures to assess their progress. There were shared care arrangements in place where appropriate and good liaison with GP practices and pharmacy services. Patients either remained under treatment indefinitely (including shared care arrangements) or were discharged from the service. The provider signposted to crisis/ mental health services and made patients aware of these, for example including them on their out of office and email responses.

Partners had no specific feedback on this area.

There was a process in place for patients to make self- referrals to the service. Policies and processes to ensure patient safety were in place. For example, the location of the patient was recorded when they attended appointments online. The provider provided patients with out of hours numbers and contacts in emails and clinic letters.

Patients said they felt safe and well supported by the service.

Safeguarding referrals were very rare. One had been made since registration. The provider had taken appropriate steps and could describe what steps needed to be taken to protect the individual from harm/ abuse.

Our observations raised no concerns regarding safeguarding at the service.

There was a safeguarding policy in place which the inspector reviewed on site. This set out the safeguarding process to follow. Safeguarding training was up to date.

Patient experience was overwhelmingly positive. Patients reported that they were very involved in the development of their care and were well informed to make their own decisions.

Care records demonstrated that patients were involved in their care and that the provider worked with patients to set up safety plans. The provider provided individualised care and gave patients tools and techniques to managed their conditions. All patients had clinical risk assessments in place which were reviewed regularly.

The service used a range of questionnaires and interview to ascertain patient history, including risk history. All patients had a risk assessment in place, which was reviewed and updated if necessary during each session.

Patients had the option of attending the service or having appointments online. Patient’s spoke positively about both options, describing the physical office as a “well-appointed office and easy access location.” Others said that the online portal for submitting information was very easy to use and the booking system was “simple and efficient.”

The provider had a Service Level Agreement in place with the landlord who arranged cleaning of the building. Care records guided staff to record where patients were when attending online appointments.

The office used for patient appointments was clean and well maintained. There was hand sanitiser and cleaning equipment available.

There was fire action information and an evacuation process in place. The provider had a service level agreement in place with the landlord who arranged cleaning of the building. Risk assessments in a clinical setting policy, and a standard operating procedure for challenging patients provided clear processes for how to respond to risks posed by patients.

Patients said that the Registered Provider was knowledgeable and gave them appropriate advice. They could get support whenever they needed it.

The provider had a DBS check in place. Their competencies were overseen by the General Medical Council and Independent Doctors Federation. The provider ensured the nurse practitioner was suitably qualified and skilled to undertake their role. Supervision arrangements were in place.

Patients booked sessions up to 3 months in advance. The provider was available to deliver care during the sessions booked and there were rarely any sessions cancelled.

There were safe recruitment practices to make sure that all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role.

Patients had little feedback about this quality statement simply describing the clinic as "pleasant."

An external cleaning company ensured that premises were clean and well maintained.

The premises tour showed that the environment was clean and well maintained. There were sufficient supplies of cleaning products and hand sanitiser.

There was an infection prevention and control policy in place which was subject to regular review

Patients consistently commented on feeling like “equal” partners throughout discussions about medication. They reported they were given information to enable them to make their own choices about medication and supported to consider new medications when these became available. Patients were supported to explore a range of medication options and consider which was right for them, including financial costs. Patients found the responsiveness of the service during medication changes or medication shortages particularly reassuring, as staff were available between sessions to discuss any concerns.

The service did not handle medication. Staff sent prescriptions to a private online pharmaceutical company, who sent the medication to the individual directly.

A review of medicines by the specialist adviser demonstrated that safe practices for prescribing were in place. For example, staff discussed safety of medication storage while a patient was on holiday and explained Home Office requirements.

The service did not handle medication onsite. These were distributed by a private pharmaceutical company. Patients found these systems as easy and efficient.