Our experience closely mirrored the concerns raised in the previous review by “General.” From the outset, there were signs that the practitioner lacked sufficient familiarity with the specific speech condition we were seeking treatment for, needing to conduct additional research during the early stages of care. This immediately raised concerns about the level of expertise being provided. Unfortunately, a number of aspects of the service left us feeling uneasy. We received quotes for future consultations before current progress had even been properly reviewed, and were unexpectedly asked to cover the cost of training another allied health professional after our practitioner changed her working days. It was difficult to understand why this expense would be passed on to the client. Combined with what we felt were overly rigid cancellation policies, the overall experience became increasingly frustrating. Most concerning, however, was our lack of confidence in the treatment itself. During a review consultation, I was asked for my own assessment of my son’s progress, only to have the practitioner simply agree with my observations and recommend continuing for another term, without offering any meaningful clinical insight or measurable evaluation. While there was considerable emphasis placed on “goals” and “plans,” the actual delivery did not reflect this. Reports designed to establish treatment goals failed to reference the primary reason we sought support (speech clustering) leaving us uncertain whether sessions were appropriately targeted. Progress notes largely described activities completed during sessions, but offered little clarity around whether objectives were being achieved or where improvement was lacking. Given that the company presents itself as offering structured, goal oriented therapy with measurable outcomes, we were disappointed to find that the planning, assessment, and communication fell well short of those expectations.
