The London Centre for Eating Disorders and Body Image Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated outstanding.

This meant people were truly respected and valued as individuals; and empowered as partners in their care in an exceptional service.

Staff treated all patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff consistently informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

This service scored 95 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Patients told us the staff consistently treated them with kindness, compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

All patients and carers were very positive when talking about the staff and the care they had received. They told us they felt listened to in appointments and that staff were patient and supportive, which helped them to feel safe in appointments. All carers told us they felt involved in discussions and also felt supported.

Patients commented positively on the flexibility of the service, such as being able to have more regular appointments when needed, at times that suited them.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. A carer told us they were offered further discussions with the psychiatrist to discuss their child starting medicine. They described feeling supported to make a decision, and said the psychiatrist was realistic and truthful in their explanations.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. Record systems were secure and patients told us staff asked permission before sharing information with carers and external services. When patients had family therapy, the service ensured this was facilitated by a different therapist than the one seeing the patient for individual work. Patients and carers told us this helped keep the individual sessions a confidential safe place.

The service collected feedback from patients and carers. In the most recent survey, all 47 respondents reported feeling safe and supported by the service. All respondents said they felt the service treated them with kindness, dignity and respect.

The service used feedback from patients and carers to continually improve the service and experience for their patients. For example, redeveloping their website to make it more accessible, creating specific terms and conditions for carers who were also bill payers, and attempting to reduce the number of questionnaires needed before booking an appointment with the service.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service treated people as individuals and was exceptional in how they made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure the care and treatment met patient’s needs and preferences.

The service supported patients with additional or specific needs. For example, staff told us they made adjustments for neurodivergent patients, such as providing soft lighting from lamps, using fidget toys in sessions and having more face to face meetings as some patients found remote sessions more difficult.

All patients told us staff understood and supported their individual needs. One patient told us staff did not use standard or ‘one size fits all’ treatment when working with them. They told us staff were able to work with their eating disorder and neurodivergence to create an individual evidence-based treatment plan for them. Another patient found it useful to have a written summary of each session. Initially the therapist wrote the summary at the end of each appointment, and over time the patient began taking these notes themselves.

The service provided information in formats suitable for patient’s needs. The service’s website informed patients to contact them directly should they need any information in a different or more accessible format. The service was currently redeveloping their website to make it more inclusive and accessible. These changes included using clear and simple language, not having any pop ups or auto-play videos and having plain text on a white background.

Staff supported patient’s cultural needs. For example, staff spoke to us about supporting patients who wished to observe Ramadan, despite this sometimes being against medical advice.

Managers had made links with interpreting services to support patients who required this service.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at promoting people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. All patients told us they felt they were involved and in control of decisions around their care. One patient told us the clinicians they worked with collaborated with them, going at a pace that suited them, rather than move them onto the next stage of treatment before they were ready.

All patients told us staff listened to their concerns and made decisions together. They told us treatment options were fully explained and any questions were answered directly and in full.

Patients and carers said staff provided good, clear information about the service and their treatment plans. Patients who had been prescribed medicines said staff gave them clear information about side effects and helpful information to inform their choice of medicine.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

All patients told us staff gave them the support and treatment to support their individual needs.

Staff were aware of the specific risks related to the patient group they saw. For example, significant changes in weight, re-feeding syndrome and the need for physical health monitoring.

This service was not a crisis service, and they did not accept severe presentations. New referrals were screened to ensure patients could safely be managed by this service. The high-risk screening tool highlighted patients may be inappropriate for the service if they were a high risk of re-feeding syndrome, had experienced rapid weight loss, or had additional specialist needs such as substance misuse. Where severe concerns were noted, a patient was signposted to services such as, a local NHS crisis team or liaison psychiatry.

If a patient was not suitable for the service following their initial assessment, the patient was provided with information on where to get support that was more suited to their needs, and a referral was sent if agreed by the patient. For example, a local NHS eating disorder service, or a different private provider to support their individual needs.

When patients already under the service became more unwell, clinicians were able to see their patients more regularly and refer them to see the psychiatrist for a more detailed assessment.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

All staff told us they felt respected, supported and consistently valued by their colleagues and managers. All staff spoke very positively about working at the service and they were proud of the work of their team.

The service carried out a survey for their staff team in September 2025. Twenty staff responded to this survey. The survey found the majority of staff strongly agreed that their wellbeing was recognised and supported by the clinic. One staff member rated this a 3 out of 5, due to the fees arrangements within the service. Managers responded to this feedback to say they would review the fee structure for staff and be more transparent with how money was used within the service.

The service had regular events to come together to discuss learning, as well as social events away from the office to support team bonding.

Staff told us the service supported their professional development. For example, providing training on different topics, and providing a range of supervision sessions. The service also worked with a local university, and provided training placements and supervision to trainee therapists.