The Care Quality Commission
  • Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Archived: Anna Freud Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

12 Maresfield Gardens, London, NW3 5SU (020) 7794 2313

Provided and run by:
The Anna Freud Centre

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

10 April 2018

During a routine inspection

We rated this service as good overall because:

  • Young people and families said staff were skilled at engaging with people of different ages and approached care in a collaborative and supportive way. All their feedback to us was extremely positive.

  • There were no waiting lists and people were seen at the service quickly.

  • Patient participation was excellent and 35 young people and parent champions were currently involved in a wide range of projects that contributed to service development and improvement. This included sitting on research and staff interview panels, developing information and tools for other patients and providing key feedback and opinions about service changes. The champions we spoke with felt their role was valued and their contributions were taken seriously. The service had involved champions in the inspection and demonstrated their support of this position through having two staff members who were employed as participation workers. The service were constantly thinking of ways to enhance their work with champions and had plans to recruit a total of 60 in the next 12 months.

  • The service contributed to innovation and ongoing research and development in care and treatment for young people with mental health issues and used nationally recognised rating scales to monitor and review the evidence-based interventions they offered. The service actively sought out opportunities to work with other charities and universities in developing resources and research to support young people and families affected by mental health issues.

  • The service used technologies to enhance their work and looked for ways to improve patient engagement at all times. For example, in how they collected feedback from patients and using a mobile phone app to keep in touch with young person champions.

  • The service supported and encouraged staff development through training and staff said they were very pleased and proud to work for the provider.

  • Governance systems allowed senior staff to review and manage the service well. The service had addressed recommendations made in the last inspection. This included strengthening systems for reviewing criminal records checks for all staff, ensuring mandatory training covered all necessary areas, ensuring the CQC were notified of all statutory notifications and providing clear information to young people about external services they could contact in a crisis.

10 May 2016

During a routine inspection

We rated the service as good because:

  • The service managed caseloads well so that young people were seen quickly. There was no waiting list to access the majority of specialist teams. Where there were waiting lists, they were between one and six weeks.

  • The service’s safeguarding procedures were robust. Staff compliance with safeguarding training was high.

  • Staff were aware of how to report an incident and there was evidence of change being made within the service as a result of feedback from incidents.

  • Staff responded to complaints appropriately and in a timely way.

  • The centre offered a range of psychological therapies and research at the centre had directly contributed to NICE guidance. The centre had been involved in using several new models of intervention that were then rolled out nationally.

  • Young people and carers said the service was helpful and described the service as brilliant. Staff were available to speak to carers when they wanted and returned calls when necessary. The service had a welcoming waiting room and plenty of therapy rooms.

  • The centre had good working links with external organisations.

  • The centre website was up to date, young person friendly and informative. The centre was involved in several web-based support services for young people that were developed by young people.

  • Staff received regular supervision and felt supported and proud to work at the centre. Staff said the centre had

However:

  • The centre had introduced electronic records in January 2016 and thorough recording was not yet embedded across the staff team. We found staff did not regularly record when they reviewed risk and what the individual plans for care were.

  • There was no central recording of some health and safety audits and actions. For example there was no evidence that staff regularly wiped down toys and resources after use to reduce risk of spread of infection. Also, staff assessed the environment for ligature risks in 2015, however had not kept a written record of this. There was no written audit plan for when this would next take place.

  • The centre did not have written information about sources of support in a crisis. Where other information leaflets were available, for example on how to make a complaint, these did not outline whether they were available in other languages or in different formats, for example in an easy read format or braille.

  • In the 12 months leading up to the inspection, the service had not notified the CQC of all reportable incidents in line with statutory requirements.

  • The systems and processes around employment records had not highlighted that two staff records did not contain up-to-date disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks.

21 January 2014

During a routine inspection

On the day of inspection we spoke with the chief operating officer, the registered manager, four clinical members of staff and five people who were using services.

One person told us the service has been, 'Really helpful, particularly around how our behaviour together can affect another family member.' A second person said, 'The level of therapy given is very high, staff are well-trained and you can feel their care.' A third person said they had, 'Learnt more about our baby and understand our baby's feelings, what baby needs and wants.' They told us, 'Staff explained the things that needed further work, in order for the baby to be settled.'

People received the care and support that met their needs. Staff had undergone safeguarding training, which enabled them to identify and respond to any potential safeguarding concerns. We found that there was adequate information about making a complaint. We found that staff attended supervision and received an annual review and development meeting. We saw that people who attended the Anna Freud Centre (AFC) had individual records which were stored safely.

14 February 2013

During a routine inspection

When we visited we spoke with six parents who were attending the Anna Freud Centre. We also spoke with ten members of staff and looked at notes and supporting documentation. All the parents we spoke with spoke highly of the quality of the service. Their comments included the following: 'They have been very good,' 'communication has been seamless,' and 'we have found it very helpful.'

People were satisfied that their privacy was respected and that they were treated with respect. They told us they felt involved in making choices about the support they received, and their concerns were taken seriously by staff. They spoke highly of the service they had received and told us they were provided with information about the service.

Appropriate safeguarding procedures were in place to protect people from harm, and people were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff that had appropriate checks undertaken on them before they began work.

Appropriate quality assurance procedures were in place to look at ways of continuing to improve the service provided.