The London Centre for Eating Disorders and Body Image Ltd

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service met the needs of all patients, including those with a protected characteristic. Staff referred their patients to external support where needed. They kept in good contact with all professionals involved in the care and treatment of their patients. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

This service scored 75 (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 3. 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.

Patients told us they were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning their care needs. One patient told us the service got to know their daily activities and preferences to help with their treatment plan, for example, discussing what shops they buy food in to plan in detail their meal plan.

Staff referred patients to external services to support their individual needs. For example, patients told us they had been referred for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) assessments and to GPs for physical health monitoring.

Patients told us there was flexibility when booking appointments, meaning they could arrange their appointments around their work or school schedules and personal events.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked together with other services and clinicians to meet the needs of their patients. We saw examples of staff referring patients to their GPs and local NHS specialist eating disorder services. A patient told us their therapist at the service was in regular contact with their external Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) clinician.

The service saw around 300 patients per year. In 2025 the psychiatrist had met with 38 patients. The service did not have a wait list. Patients told us they were seen quickly for an initial assessment, often within a week. Managers told us there was sometimes a wait for specific specialist therapies or to meet with the psychiatrist. These patients were monitored in weekly managers meetings and support was offered in the meantime where needed.

The service offered appointments in the evening, as well as some appointments on Saturdays. Patients told us they found it useful to have the option to attend appointments after work.

Managers reviewed the staffing needs for the service and recruited in particular areas when needed. For example, managers recently recruited a therapist who specialised in Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) following an increase in the number of referrals requiring this support.

Staff told us when a clinician was off sick or on leave, other clinicians stepped in to cover each other’s patients, to ensure patients received timely care and treatment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service’s website had clear information on what treatments were offered, which clinicians worked at the service and how much the appointments would cost. They had links to the terms and conditions of treatment, as well as the service’s complaints policy.

Patients received emails before their appointments with useful links and information, such as how to access their appointment and crisis support information.

Staff ensured carers and families were regularly updated about the patient’s progress. Patients told us staff asked permission before sharing information with their families. Carers told us they felt up to date and included in their relative’s care.

At the time of inspection, information was not available in patient areas. Managers told us they did not feel it was appropriate to have service specific information in a shared building. Following the inspection the service made posters with information such as how to complain, eating disorder support lines and crisis support information, which they put in meeting rooms which were only used by this service.

The service was able to access interpreters for patients. However, this service had not yet been needed.

Managers provided information in accessible formats for staff. For example, we saw examples of managers providing concise emails, with bullet points, for staff members with dyslexia or ADHD. Managers told us they had follow up calls to discuss any questions with staff who found written text formats more difficult.

The electronic record system was secure. The video platform used to have online appointments was secure, and these calls were not recorded.

The service was registered with the information commissioner’s office as appropriate.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Patients and carers told us they knew how to complain or raise a concern, if they needed to. The service carried out their own patient survey and found over 90% of patients described the service as responding very well, extremely well, or promptly when they had a concern.

In the last 12 months the service had not received any formal complaints. In this time, they had received 3 informal complaints. These informal complaints had not been made by patients under the care of the psychiatrist. The concerns raised were related to patients not feeling the therapist was the right fit for them and one patient had accidentally been given the wrong appointment date. The service looked into these concerns and responded to the patients with their findings.

Changes were made as a result of patient feedback. For example, setting up a new referral pathway with less forms and questionnaires after some patients felt there were too many forms. They also created the Intensive Outpatient Programme (IOP) for those patients who expressed they would like more structured daily support. The service had also created a separate bill payer terms and conditions form following feedback from a carer regarding their child’s missed appointments.

When complaints or concerns were received regarding a particular clinician, there was an increase in supervision sessions and managers spoke openly and sensitively about the concerns raised.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed.

Patients were able to access the service in a way that met their needs, such as in person or virtually. Appointment times were flexible depending on the clinicians and the patients’ availability.

The service had low waiting times to access appointments.

There was no crisis pathway at this service, and patients were directed to local community crisis services or emergency departments if needed.

The service made reasonable adjustments for patients when needed, such as using a ground floor room for appointments for those with mobility issues, being able to dim the lights for those with sensory needs and using a range of fidget toys during appointments.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Feedback from patients and carers was very positive. Patients told us staff treated people with respect and without discrimination.

Staff within the service promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt able to give their views. Patients we spoke with said they would speak to the clinician or administrative staff if they had any concerns.

The management team was aware that their outpatient services were not suitable for complex or severe mental health conditions. They had a suitability criteria, which was reviewed when patients were referred into the service. This criteria was based on Medical Emergencies in Eating disorder (MEED) guidance. If a patient’s needs could not be safely managed by the service, they would be contacted with an explanation, as well as a referral to more suitable services.

The service did not include equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights training within their mandatory training list. At the time of inspection, 17 out of 35 staff had shared completed training certificates with the service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future.

Where appropriate, staff supported patients to consider longer term decisions about their care and treatment. When needed, patients were referred to NHS services where patients were able to receive longer term support.

Staff ensured relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. For example, staff included safeguarding services, schools, local NHS services and GPs services when needed.