I had two psychiatry appointments with Dr Wieck; a normal format for the type of adult service that I was accessing. At the first appointment I was given ample time to discuss and convey my history, symptoms and my aspirations for treatment. There was a lot to discuss and I didn't feel rushed. Some of my communication was convoluted but Dr Wieck refrained from interrupting me. I felt that she was very skilled at drawing out the relevant information without asking leading questions or causing me to say something that wasn't true. Dr Wieck was polite, professional, focused, and never patronising. Unfortunately the outcome of the first appointment was an incorrect diagnosis. Dr Wieck gave me a wide variety of treatment options to try in sequence, and explained that she had some success with a similar patient with some of those treatments. She probably did this realising that I had a lack of optimism that any treatment would be successful. The treatments that were suggested resulted in a significant improvement in my symptoms. Although the treatment that was used going forward wasn't one that Dr Wieck suggested, the treatments she had suggested did lead to the successful treatment. It was the successful treatment that led to the revised diagnosis too. Dr Wieck wrote to my GP, my consult and I with a very long, detailed record of our discussion, my history, some treatment options, and a prognosis. At my second appointment, Dr Wieck appeared to have assimilated all of the information from my previous appointment although 18 months had elapsed. This saved me from repeating myself at length and enabled us to have a more productive and forward facing discussion to build on the success that had already been achieved. I was equally pleased with all of the qualities of the appointment - the ample time afforded, Dr Wieck's politeness, attention and so on. Dr Wieck accepted, for example, that my mental health left me feeling unable to exercise and some other things that I thought she might challenge me on. I was pleased and relieved that she took my word for these things. Towards the end of the appointment Dr Wieck indicated that my residual symptoms might be beyond current medical knowledge. I was alarmed and deflated at this, and felt that the news was delivered in such a way that it indicated that Dr Wieck hadn't understood the impact my condition had on my life. This was the only particularly disappointing part of my experience with Dr Wieck. I strongly reiterated the problems that I faced and the impact that it had on my life, and Dr Wieck did appear to listen and assured me that she would consult her colleagues to try to find a way forwards. Again, Dr Wieck wrote to the salient parties at length and included one new treatment option to address the residual symptoms, which is showing a partial effect at the time of writing. I consider Dr Wieck's clinical skill level to be extraordinarily high and have found the quality of her interpersonal interactions to be above average. The accuracy of her (lengthy) notes was extremely high, as was the quality of the written records she provided after each appointment. I felt that she could have been more ruthless in pursuing a solution, however novel, to my residual needs. Also, I don't think she recognised the devastating impact that those problems have on my day to day functioning although I feel that I had explained it sufficiently for her to do so. When I reiterated the point she did take on board my additional input and gave a further treatment option, which is the outcome that I wanted.