Orri Wimpole Street

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This was the first inspection of the registered Wimpole Street location following the relocation of the service from its previous premises in Hallam Street. This key question has been rated Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Governance processes operated effectively. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected and analysed data about outcomes and performance. They used this to identify improvements.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Well-led.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The service showed strong leadership, underpinned by a clear strategic vision and an inclusive culture that prioritised patient care, staff engagement, and transparent communication. Staff reported feeling listened to and actively involved in shaping the service.

The service aimed to provide people experiencing an eating disorder with high‑quality, evidence‑based care delivered in a professional and compassionate environment. Staff were highly attuned to each person’s individual story and their unique relationship with food. The provider’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service.

The service’s website clearly articulated its ethos, emphasising a commitment to treating people as individuals, understanding each person’s eating‑disorder journey, and supporting them to achieve sustained recovery. The service focused on education for the patients and carers.

All staff we spoke with were highly motivated, passionate and positive about their roles. They described a friendly, safety-focused, and open culture, and reported receiving strong support from managers. Staff consistently described a positive working environment and effective teamwork.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

There was compassionate, inclusive and effective leadership at all levels. Leaders at all levels demonstrated the high levels of experience, capacity and capability needed to deliver excellent, inclusive and sustainable care. The chief executive was also the registered manager and had extensive experience of working in eating disorders. They were supported by an experienced senior leadership team which oversaw all service lines. Leaders were able to explain clearly how they led the service and worked with their staff teams to ensure the quality of the service.

During the inspection, leaders demonstrated high levels of experience, capacity and capability to manage the service effectively. They had a clear understanding of the challenges to quality and sustainability and took appropriate action to address them.

Managers and leaders were actively seeking solutions to operational challenges and ensuring the service remained accessible to all patients. We saw clear evidence that managers were engaged in both the current and future development of the service, contributing to strategic planning and pathway redesign. The service was working towards a comprehensive service improvement plan that outlined priority areas for development, including enhancements to clinical pathways. This plan clearly identified where improvements were needed and set out the actions required to strengthen the quality, consistency, and responsiveness of care. One example was in strengthening multidisciplinary formulation and review processes.

Performance was regularly reviewed through structured leadership meetings, where risks were discussed, monitored and mitigated. This ensured that issues were identified early and that the service remained safe, well‑governed and responsive to emerging pressures.

Staff and patients confirmed that leaders were visible in the service and approachable for patients and staff. Leaders fostered a psychologically safe environment where staff felt empowered to speak up, innovate and contribute to service development.

All staff we spoke with told us leaders across the service were highly visible and took time to recognise each individual’s strengths and needs across the organisation.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Leaders fostered a positive culture where most patients and their families felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff and leaders acted with openness, honesty, and transparency. Staff were encouraged to raise concerns with their managers or with the chief executive directly.

There was a detailed whistleblowing policy in place. All staff we spoke to felt able to raise concerns with their managers and told us they were approachable and listened. The registered manager was open, honest and transparent. When something went wrong, they apologised to people and explained the actions they were taking to prevent this from happening again.

Patients and carers had multiple opportunities to provide feedback in ways that reflected their individual needs.

Managers and staff had access to this feedback and used it to inform service improvements. Patients and carers were actively involved in decision‑making about changes to the service and staff recruitment.

Patients and staff were able to meet with members of the senior leadership team to share their views directly, demonstrating an open culture and a commitment to co‑production.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Staff were able to apply to work flexibly. Flexible working agreements took into account personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role.

The provider undertook equality monitoring of staff within the service to ensure it is diverse in its make-up and representative of the patient group. The service had a DEI committee that reviewed equality monitoring.

We scored the service as 3 The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

The leadership, culture and robust governance arrangements were used effectively to drive and improve the delivery of high‑quality, person‑centred care. The service systematically monitored standards of care to support continuous improvement in patient outcomes. All teams participated in a structured audit programme covering care and treatment, care planning, staff supervision and appraisals. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance in quality of care and staff acted on the results when needed. However, the service had not identified, and did not have oversight of, the prescribing practices of psychiatrists.

Managers ensured there was a clear governance structure in place, supported by processes, policies and systems that enabled the service to run effectively and deliver high‑quality care. Staff understood lines of accountability. Robust governance mechanisms were established for both the online and in‑person treatment pathways.

Managers reviewed the performance and effectiveness of the service at monthly clinical governance and operational governance meetings. These meetings considered mandatory training and supervision rates, incidents, infection prevention and control, patient feedback (including complaints and compliments), compliance with national guidelines and examples of innovative practice. A clear reporting structure ensured information was shared across the service. Information flowed in both directions, with key updates communicated between the clinical governance meeting, operational governance meeting, staff team meetings and patient meetings. There was a clear framework of what must be discussed at team and clinical governance meetings to ensure that essential information such as incidents, safeguarding, risk, health and safety, audits was shared and discussed. Governance was further strengthened by the oversight of an independent chair, providing additional scrutiny, assurance and external challenge.

Staff were supported by a management team that worked closely with them to enhance learning and drive continuous improvement. Staff received appropriate mandatory and specialist training, alongside regular supervision and an annual performance appraisal. Opportunities for development were embedded across all roles, and staff were supported to progress through individual training plans and structured appraisal processes. Education and learning were regarded as a cornerstone of the service’s approach to maintaining a skilled and competent workforce.

Staff understood how to work collaboratively with colleagues across the organisation and with external professionals and services to meet the needs of patients.

Staff had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care and used that information to good effect. There was a robust system for identifying, recording and managing risks, issues and mitigating actions. Risk management was well embedded throughout the service and recognised as a collective responsibility of all the staff. The service had a risk register which listed the key areas of risk to the organisation and service. The risk register was reviewed at clinical governance and the senior leadership meetings.

The service had plans for emergencies, for example, adverse weather or a flu outbreak.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology required to undertake their roles safely and effectively. The information technology infrastructure functioned reliably and supported the delivery of high‑quality care.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They always shared information and learning with partners and collaborated to drive improvement.

Managers had sought out and built positive and collaborative relationships with external partners to understand the challenges of the local and national population and to meet those needs. Commissioners of the two online pilots told us that the programmes were successfully avoiding avoidable admissions and keeping patients as close to home as possible. Comments from commissioners included “the service provides individualised care, that is flexible and collaborative”. “The service is extraordinarily nurturing and responsive”. Commissioners confirmed the service was very responsive in addressing any risk issues identified with patients, such as safeguarding or physical health concerns.

Managers engaged actively with other health and social care providers to ensure that an integrated health and care system was commissioned and to meet the needs of those with eating disorders in the local and national population.

Managers had developed links with other services within the UK. Managers were able to evidence the benefits of an early intervention day service treatment model as an alternative treatment for patients who were not suitable for inpatient eating disorder services.

The service had developed links with local universities to share learning and good practice. The service worked with university well being teams to provide awareness training on eating disorders, such as recognising an unhealthy body mass index (BMI) score. They also provided teaching sessions to schools so that teachers could recognise if children had an eating disorder and body image issues.

The service demonstrated a proactive approach to digital development and remained committed to adopting technological advancements that enhanced clinical and operational processes. The service had implemented the Orri Hub, which was a unified digital platform that integrated clinical and operational functions. This system strengthened the efficiency of patient diary management and scheduling and supported the creation of accessible platforms for both staff and patients. For children and young people, parents and carers were able to access the Orri Hub, which ensured they remained informed about planned sessions and activities. The service was able to add parents and carers directly to appointments. Carers fed back that this had improved coordination of family therapy sessions, treatment reviews and other carer-related appointments. The Orri hub allowed strengthened use of outcome data within treatment. For example, clinicians could access patient responses in real time, review them collaboratively with patients during sessions and use them to inform care planning and therapeutic discussions. This supported transparency and enabled families to stay engaged in the young person’s care. For adults using the service, access to the individual’s schedule was only provided when the person gave explicit consent, ensuring that information‑sharing with parents or carers was managed safely and in line with consent and confidentiality requirements.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They always encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Managers encouraged staff to contribute ideas for improving the service and developing best practice. Staff told us that continuous learning and development were closely aligned with the organisation’s value of curiosity, and that they were supported to reflect, innovate and share learning across the service.

Quality improvement (QI) initiatives were strongly embedded within the service. All staff were familiar with the process and methodology of quality improvement. Various QI projects were taking place such as review of the DEI strategy, improving food service experience, education and learning and MDT processes.

The service was accredited by the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Quality Network for Eating Disorders (QED), which works with inpatient and community services to assure and improve the quality of care for people with eating disorders and their carers. At the time of the review the service fully met 85 per cent of standards for community eating disorder services.

The service had reviewed the findings from the National Audit of Eating Disorders (NAED) and the key themes from the 2025 service‑mapping report, which analysed national and regional data across inpatient and community eating disorder services. The service was using this information to prepare for an upcoming service audit and to benchmark its performance against national standards.

Staff had opportunities to participate in research activities. They were supported by Orri’s Director of Research and Development who is a leading Professor at University College London, where they lead the world’s only postgraduate programme in eating disorders and Clinical Nutrition. They provided comprehensive training on eating disorders to the staff team and had contributed to the development of the Medical Emergencies in Eating Disorders (MEED) guidelines for both young people and adults. They had also been instrumental in the development of Mentalization‑Based Therapy for eating disorders.

The service had been recognised nationally for excellence in clinical innovation and high‑quality care. Achievements included the Health Service Journal Excellence in Clinical Innovation Award 2026, Best Independent Healthcare Provider 2025, Best Provider of Mental Health Services at the Health Service Journal Independent Healthcare Providers Awards, awarded jointly to Orri and the NHS Kent and Sussex Adult Eating Disorders Provider Collaborative.

The service was in the process of piloting an artificial intelligence tool for eating disorders within the day‑care treatment programme. Managers were working closely with the app developers to ensure the tool was safe, clinically appropriate and aligned with the service’s therapeutic model before wider implementation.