Emerald Place Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This means young people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service is a mixed sex service. Young people had access to their own their own bedroom with en-suite facilities. Young people had access to outdoor spaces where they could play sports or spend time with their visitors. Young people who were admitted to the ward had their mental health needs and physical health needs assessed when they arrived or shortly after their admission.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Young people had access to their phones and could makes calls in private.

Young people told us that they had access to drinks and snacks, however, they had to ask staff to be able access items from the fridge. Young people had a choice for meals and snacks and completed their choices form each morning. Food was prepared on site by the catering team.

Staff facilitated a community meeting once per week. Young people were encouraged to attend and share their feedback with the staff. Feedback gathered was actioned and used to enhance the experience of young people on the ward. Examples of this included, in January 2026, young people asked for a notice board to be put up so that they could display their artwork. Young people asked for a karaoke machine for activities. Both of the requests were actioned and were in place on the ward at the time of this inspection.

Young people were given a My Care and Treatment Survey every 6 weeks during their admission. Feedback from 4 young people in January 2026 highlighted that they all felt involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. All reported that they had access to activities that considered their interests and preferences. All 4 young people reported that they have a food option that offer choice and variety.

Each young person had their own bedroom, which they could personalise. We observed bedrooms that had belongings and decorations. Young people had a secure place to store their personal possessions in their room. The service had a visiting room where young people could meet with visitors in private. Young people had access to outside space with the support of staff.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Care records showed that discharge planning was prioritised at the point of admission. Staff and carers informed us that discharge planning was affected by external factors such as lack of appropriate places or funding issues. This meant that there could be delays for young people being discharged. These factors were beyond the control of the service, but the team continued to escalate concerns with external agencies to ensure that young people were not kept in hospital unnecessarily.

The service had a vehicle that was used to help young people access social activities away from the hospital. There were planned community activities that young people could access, to support their integration to the community.

The service had a school onsite that was reviewed by another regulatory body. This allowed young people to have their educational needs met whilst in hospital.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We reviewed 6 care records and found that 5 young people were given a copy of their care plan. The other person declined to have a copy. One young person confirmed that that the care plan was completed with staff. Another young person confirmed that they did not wish to have a copy of their care plan.

During our inspection, we observed several young people had copies of their PBS care plan in their bedrooms.

There was evidence in the care records that young people are provided with their rights under the Mental Health Act where applicable.

The service provided information in easy read format to young people that required it. We observed copies of generic information in easy read formats such as My observation Levels which explained what the different types of observations mean. We also reviewed copies of specific information for individual young people, including what to expect at an upcoming hospital appointment or when they are going for a blood test.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Young people attended their ward rounds and were encouraged to complete a feedback form prior to their scheduled meeting. The feedback form was used as the agenda for their meeting. We found evidence in care records of discussions regarding leave requests and young people being offered choices with regard to their treatment plans.

Young people had access to a complaints book on the ward. Complaints that were shared in the book were resolved in a timely manner. The resolutions to the informal complaints were logged and monitored for themes and trends. Young people had the opportunity to raise complaints formally.

Young people attended a weekly community meeting with members of the MDT. Young people were encouraged to share ideas and give feedback at the meeting. The standing items for the meeting included, ward agreements, restrictive practice, relationships on the ward, groups and other meaningful activities, ward environment, news and updates, food, school and an open space for young people to share ideas. Actions from the meeting were tracked and the minutes were displayed in the communal areas so that young people could access them easily.

Young people’s views were recorded in a variety of surveys, and the feedback was collated into monthly quality reports.

Young people were aware of how to raise concerns and could access a complaints book where they can record their concerns. Staff and managers on the unit aim to resolve issues locally.

Staff were trained in complaints awareness - 97.8% of staff had completed this at the time of the inspection.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The ward environment was able to cater for people with mobility issues.

Young people were encouraged to be involved in developing their care plans and had choices in relation to their care and treatment.

Young people had access to a range of professionals during their stay at the service. They were able to discuss their concerns with a social worker, psychologist, the nursing team, psychiatrists and occupational therapists.

Documents on the ward could be made available in easy read formats and the service is was to arrange for interpreters as required.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Young people had access to advocacy services, and their information is displayed on the ward.

Young people were involved in their care planning. We observed young people sharing their views in ward rounds and discussing their care and treatment.

Managers and leaders within the service dealt with young person-on-young person discrimination and bullying in a timely manner to ensure a resolution was achieved with all parties being happy with the outcome. These incidents were logged and monitored for themes.

The service actively sought feedback from young people in a variety of surveys that were completed at different intervals during their stay on the ward. The feedback was used to tailor support, care and treatment where possible.

The service was able to utilise different methods of communication to improve the quality of life and independence of the young people accessing the service.

Staff were trained in Diversity, Equality and Inclusion and 97.8% of staff completed this at the time of inspection. The service also trained staff to provide safe, compassionate and informed care for people with autism and learning disabilities. The rate of completion for this training was 97.8%

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Young people attended regular meetings to discuss their care and treatment during their admission to the ward. They were encouraged to discuss decisions about their care and treatment whilst also being part of discussions about their discharge. One carer we spoke to also shared that they were involved in discussions about discharge from the ward. Carers told us that they were kept informed of progress.

Staff ensured that relevant healthcare professionals and external stakeholders were invited to attend meetings and were involved in the planning of care and treatment for young people. A carer reported that they were assured that things were going to be in place for their relative when they returned home and stated that NHS organisations were involved in their care post discharge.