Archived: CMHClinic Farnham

We inspected CMHClinic Farnham. The service is a community child and adolescent mental health service which is privately funded and primarily offers assessment and treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) as well as other neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders.

We rated this service as good because:

• The service provided safe care and treatment. The premises where children and young people were seen were clean, well-maintained and fit for purpose. The premises could only be accessed by using an intercom and a member of staff let clients in. Staff assessed individual risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff conducted comprehensive assessments in collaboration with families and carers. They provided treatment that was informed by best-practice guidance and suitable to the needs of the children and young people.
• The team included specialists required to meet the needs of the children and young people. Staff were up to date with training and had regular supervision and appraisal. Where a specialist was not part of the team, staff were able to refer or signpost to other services to ensure children and young people received holistic care and treatment.
• Staff understood the principles underpinning capacity, competence and consent as they apply to children and young people.
• Staff treated children and young people with compassion and kindness and understood the individual needs of children and young people. They actively involved children and young people, families and carers in care decisions.
• The service was easy to access. Staff assessed and treated children and young people in a timely manner and they did not wait too long to start treatment. The criteria for referral to the service did not exclude children and young people who would have benefitted from care.

However:

• The service’s health and safety audit did not include reference to any potential ligature points or identify potential hazards which could cause harm. For example, the toilet cleaner was situated in an unlocked cupboard in the bathroom.
• The service’s policies had been outsourced to an external company and had not been tailored to the service. For example, at the time of the inspection the mental capacity policy did not include reference to Gillick competence, which applies when working with individuals under 16 years. Other policies also referenced a ‘HR’ team and one policy mentioned ‘needle-stick injuries’ which didn’t apply to this service.
• The service did not keep a record of the contracted staff supervision meetings. Staff received regular supervision within their NHS roles and within these meetings discussed their private work at the clinic but the registered manager did not keep records to check these meetings had taken place.