ADHDNET

7. Miss H complains that between 17 April and 1 June 2025 ADHDnet: • issued an NHS prescription with a delay on 29 April• did not issue a follow up titration appointment• issued a private prescription without prior agreement on 22 May • did not issue a timely refund for the private prescription• did not respond to phone calls, voicemails, and emails between 22 April and 31 May • alleged that Miss H tried to jump the prescription queue.

8. Miss H said ADHDnet’s failings severely affected her wellbeing and functioning. She tells us the disruption left her exhausted, destabilised, and unable to manage daily responsibilities. She also said she lost trust in ADHDnet’s ability to provide safe, timely care and treatment, leaving her feeling fearful and powerless. She tells us she faced financial hardship due to a private prescription being issued instead of an NHS one.

9. Miss H said the disruption caused feelings of anxiety and powerlessness at home, making it hard to focus which affected her relationship with her children. She said that without medication, she struggled to concentrate at work, needed frequent breaks, and had to take time off from her job. She tells us this affected her ability to work safely.

10. Miss H said she experienced withdrawal symptoms and had to ration medication. She tells us ADHDnet’s suggestion that she was trying to ‘jump the queue’ made her feel anxious and unsupported. She also tells us that having to chase responses triggered her ADHD symptoms.

11. Miss H would like ADHDnet to compensate her for her experience.

12. Miss H was diagnosed with ADHD in 2023. Although she was prescribed medication for this, she did not take it and was discharged from that service. On approximately 4 February 2025, she decided to start the medication she was given in 2023 and on 10 February contacted her GP to request re-referral into an ADHD service to continue her treatment. Her GP referred her to ADHDnet on 19 February 2025.

13. ADHDnet assessed Miss H and confirmed her ADHD diagnosis on 20 March. On 24 March, at Miss H’s request it issued a private prescription ahead of her titration appointment . At her titration review on 17 April, the records show ADHDnet considered her to be stable on her current medication and confirmed it would issue monthly prescriptions, with annual reviews arranged by the service.

14. ADHDnet issued Miss H’s first NHS prescription on 25 April. However, the next prescription, issued on 22 May, was provided privately without warning, which she paid for. After she complained, ADHDnet refunded the cost in August.

15. Miss H reports that she contacted ADHDnet several times between 22 April and 31 May by phone and email to alert the service that her prescription was running out, but that the clinic did not respond in a timely way.

17. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint in more detail, we look at a few different factors. We look at whether what happened had a negative impact on the person in question. If we think it did, we will go on to consider what, if anything, the organisation has done to try to put things right.

18. We think that although there were issues with some aspects of ADHDnet’s service, these did not result in the severe impact Miss H claims. Instead, much of the impact she suffered appears to have been the result of her decision to start her medication without support in place to ensure she has a continuing supply. This is not a judgement of her actions. We acknowledge that the landscape for ADHD treatment is currently complex and difficult to navigate and that Miss H may well not have realised that.

Prescription delay

19. We recognise that Miss H was understandably distressed about the continuity of her ADHD treatment, and we are sorry to hear about the impact that had on her. It is clear from her GP records that she was incredibly worried about her medication running out throughout February 2025. That cannot be attributed to anything ADHDnet did or did not do, as it was not responsible for her care at that point. Miss H says that the gaps in getting her medication caused a significant impact on her life, including that she needed to take time off work and her relationships were negatively impacted.

20. We looked at whether any delay around 29 April was significant enough to have contributed to the impact she described.

21. ADHDnet issued a 30‑day prescription on 25 April., which was only a day after her titration appointment. We do not think this was a significant delay but it created a two‑day gap from the previous prescription it issued on 24 March. We cannot say why Miss H did not receive her prescription until 29 April when ADHDnet had issued it five days earlier. However, information on the NHS website makes it clear to patients that they should allow five working days between requesting and receiving repeat prescription medication and that if they run out, they should use the 111 emergency prescription service. It appears Miss H did not do this, possibly because she did not know she could.

22. Had Miss H requested re-referral into an ADHD service before starting to take the medication issued in 2023, it is unlikely there would have been any gaps in her medication. We accept that there was a short gap once ADHDnet had done her titration appointment, but that the majority of the gap was before ADHDnet was responsible for her care. Even if it did delay this prescription, we do not think it is reasonable to say that the short gap it resulted in was what caused her to suffer to the extent that she did.

Titration appointments

23.  Miss H had her first titration review with ADHDnet on 17 April 2025. She told us she believed she should have received another titration appointment four weeks later and was worried about the lack of ongoing oversight of her medication. ADHDnet’s review report from 17 April records that Miss H was stable on her medication and that future reviews would take place annually as she was suitable for this. ADHDnet has also reviewed her again, at her request, on 12 June and 28 October.

24. We cannot say why Miss H thinks she should have been reviewed in four weeks from her first titration appointment as her records contradict this. Possibly, there has been a communication breakdown at some point, and this has likely caused her some confusion or uncertainty. Investigating this point further would not be in line with our approach to focus on complaints where the person affected has suffered a significant impact, so we have decided to take no further action on it. Because ADHDnet had assessed her as stable on her medication on 17 April, we cannot link the lack of trust in in ADHDnet’s ability to provide safe and timely care and treatment she describes to the lack of more frequent follow-up reviews. We recognise that the uncertainty causes Miss H concern. However, it does not appear that ADHDnet was responsible for the uncertainty because it told her it would do annual reviews rather than four weekly ones

Communication issues

25. Miss H is concerned that ADHDnet did not respond to phone calls, voicemails and emails when she tried to contact them. She says this resulted in stress and loss of her confidence in ADHDnet’s ability to provide safe, timely care and treatment. We accept you that she found ADHDnet’s communication to be slow and that you had to chase responses from them. We recognise that this impacted on your her ongoing stress levels and confidence in the service. However, as with the previous issue, this alone is not significant enough for us to investigate further.

Queue jumping

26. We considered Miss H’s concern that ADHDnet accused her of trying to ‘jump the queue’ when she asked about the timing of her titration appointment.

ADHDnet did not explicitly accuse Miss H of trying to jump the queue. Rather that is the inference she made when it told her there was a waiting list and that she would need to wait her turn.

27.

28. ADHDnet told her it had already explained that there was a waiting list and that she would need to wait her turn. Our communication standard from our Principles of Good Administration says that public bodies should aim to ensure that customers are clear about their entitlements; about what they can and cannot expect from the public body; and about their own responsibilities.’ While unfortunate that Miss H took offense at what it said, we think that ADHDnet was acting according to this standard when it told Miss H that she is on a waiting list and not accusing her of ‘jumping the queue’.

Private prescription

29. ADHDnet issued a private prescription to Miss H on 22 May without prior notice, which she paid for herself. Miss H is concerned that ADHDnet did not respond to her request for refund for the private prescription issued on 22 May in a timely way. She said that because of the delay, she experienced prolonged financial strain.

30. It is understandable that this caused her some financial strain, particularly as the refund was not provided until August. As ADHDnet has now reimbursed the cost, we consider this issue resolved and will not look into it further.

31.

Delay in refund

32. Miss H is concerned that ADHDnet did not respond to her request for refund for the private prescription issued on 22 May in a timely way. She said that because of the delay, she experienced prolonged financial strain. We acknowledge that it would have been preferable that if ADHDnet would have issued a refund sooner. However, as ADHDnet was acting in a private capacity when it issued the prescription, the complaint is outside of our remit to investigate. We cannot investigate complaints about private healthcare.

33. In conclusion, we recognise that the events surrounding Miss H’s decision to start her ADHD medication were extremely difficult for her. We acknowledge that she found ADHDnet difficult and frustrating to deal with and our decision should not detract from that. Overall, much of the impact claimed appears to have stemmed from the difficulties she experienced before ADHDnet became involved in her care and the impact she suffered as a result of any shortcomings was not so significant that we need to take further action.

34. We thank Miss H for bringing her concerns to us. We recognise our decision may be disappointing for her and hope she has found the explanations above helpful.

1. We have carefully considered Miss H’s complaint about ADHDnet. We acknowledge that Miss H experienced delays in receiving her medication and that this caused her considerable stress. While we identified shortcomings in some aspects of ADHDnet’s service, we do not consider there is sufficient evidence to fairly conclude that these issues were the cause of the significant impact she described. Therefore, we have decided we do not need to take any further action on the complaint.

2. We are sorry to hear about the experiences Miss H has had with her prescriptions, titration and communication with ADHDnet. We accept how important her complaint is to her, and understand that she has been distressed about the safety, consistency and continuity of her care and treatment.

3. We reviewed Miss H’s concerns about a prescription delay, lack of titration follow-ups, and communication. We have decided that we cannot robustly link these issues to the impact Miss H reports experiencing.

4. Miss H also complained that ADHDnet accused her of ‘queue jumping’. We found that ADHDnet handled this appropriately and in line with our Principles of Good Administration.

5. We also considered Miss H’s concern that ADHDnet issued a private prescription without prior agreement. We saw that ADHDnet has since remedied this by issuing the refund. Miss H also complained about the delay in receiving her refund. As ADHDnet issued this refund while acting as a private prescriber, this complaint falls outside our remit, and we cannot investigate it.

6. We have therefore decided we do not need to take any further action on the complaint. We have explained our decision below.