The London Centre for Eating Disorders and Body Image Ltd

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 is the first assessment for this newly registered service. 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. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. However, the service did not always ensure employed staff had documented appraisals, managers did not carry out formal audits on patient care and treatment records, and operations staff had not completed safeguarding training. The service was responsive to the feedback provided at the end of the inspection and addressed most of these concerns.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency and understanding the challenges and the needs of people.

Staff told us about the values and ethos of the service and how they applied to the work of their team.

Managers communicated the service’s vision and values to the staff in supervision sessions, as well as wider team events, such as complex case discussions.

Staff told us they had the time and space within this service to offer thorough and holistic support to their patient group.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about changes within the service. For example, staff told us they were asked their views on the service developing an Intensive Outpatient Programme (IOP) and offering fast track assessments with less forms for the patients.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had exceptionally inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They always did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Managers had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. They had a deep understanding of the service they managed, and the disorders in which the service treated. Managers could explain clearly how the team was working together to provide high quality care.

Leaders were visible within the service, and they were available should staff or patients need to discuss any concerns.

All staff told us managers were supportive and approachable. Staff spoke highly of the support and guidance they received from managers.

There were weekly manager team meetings, where managers were able to discuss any operational concerns and updates. Managers communicated with staff through individual supervision, all-staff emails and group learning sessions. Managers arranged team social events for staff.

When managers were on leave there was a handover system, where formal cover was arranged for different areas, such as someone to cover the safeguarding lead role and someone to cover staff supervision.

Leadership development opportunities were available for employed staff. We saw examples of development discussed with staff in their appraisal. Senior therapists provided supervision for other clinicians within the service.

Following the initial feedback provided at the end of the inspection, managers were responsive and quick to make improvements. For example, they carried out audits, created informative posters, enrolled staff onto training courses and carried out an appraisal.

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.

Staff told us they felt supported by their colleagues and managers. The service had carried out a staff survey in September 2025 and found all staff felt happy with the support they received.

Managers ensured staff were supported following incidents. Managers offered regular supervision to their staff, this included individual sessions, as well as group peer support sessions. Senior clinicians were also able to attend senior staff peer support. Staff were able to access more frequent supervision when required.

The service had a whistleblowing policy, shared on induction, and available to staff online. Whilst all staff felt able to raise concerns with managers, two staff we spoke with were not aware of the specific whistleblowing procedure for the service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce.

Staff were able to work flexibly. Clinicians would keep managers updated on which days and time slots they were free to meet with patients.

The service actively recruited clinicians from different specialties and backgrounds to ensure they were able to provide diverse treatment to patients, such as having access to staff that were specialists in working with those under the age of 18 and staff with good knowledge of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always ensure employed staff had documented appraisals, managers did not carry out formal audits on patient care and treatment records. These were however reviewed as part of staff’s supervision. Operations staff who had non-clinical contact with patients had not completed safeguarding training. However, the service was very responsive to the feedback provided at the end of the inspection and addressed these concerns. Managers investigated all incidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns. Learning was shared with all staff.

The findings from the other key questions demonstrated that most localised governance processes were effective in identifying issues and driving improvement. We found a small number of areas whilst on inspection where further work was needed. The service addressed the majority of these issues promptly after the inspection.

The service had a framework of what must be discussed in the weekly managers governance meetings to ensure that information such as learning from incidents and complaints was discussed. Whilst clinical staff did not attend these meetings, other than the consultant psychiatrist, information was shared with all staff via email, individual supervision sessions and team learning events.

Managers investigated incidents and complaints and made changes following these reviews. For example, creating bill payer specific terms and conditions, and creating links with private physical health screening clinics.

The service raised safeguarding concerns when needed with the local authority. Managers kept track of all referrals and followed up areas as needed. Staff told us they discussed cases with the local authority to support their patients.

Managers were able to manage performance issues appropriately. Managers had access to a range of information about the performance of the service, staffing and patient care.

Safe recruitment practices were followed when staff first joined the service. When clinicians were onboarded they uploaded information, such as, professional certificates, DBS, and professional registrations.

Staff maintained and had access to the risk register. All staff were able to escalate their concerns if needed. Their risk register noted areas such as IT failures and criminal activity.

The service had a business continuity plan in place for emergencies. This plan covered areas such as power failures and disease outbreaks.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Staff took patient confidentiality and information security seriously. Staff could access all required policies and procedures through the service’s online record system.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. Staff said these systems worked well.

However, whilst the service had completed audits in medicines management and infection, prevention and control, the service had not carried out a formal audit on patient’s clinical records. The day after the inspection, the service had completed their clinical record audit and shared this with CQC. This audit contained areas for improvement, such as ensuring records were easier to navigate, making important information easier to find. This will be a yearly audit for the service. While the service did not carry out formal audits, managers reviewed care notes within clinical staff’s supervision.

The employed clinic lead had not completed a documented appraisal. They had however received regular performance and role development discussions, which had not been formally documented. Following the inspection, managers provided evidence this had taken place. There was a plan in place for this to occur yearly, and that any new employed staff would also receive a yearly appraisal.

The service highlighted safeguarding training and induction to the service as their mandatory training. They had requested training certificates for a number of other training courses, however, as these were not mandatory, managers did not require this for staff working within the service. Following the inspection, managers informed us they were reviewing their mandatory training framework to decide which training courses should be deemed mandatory going forward. The clinic lead had not completed safeguarding training, despite having telephone and email contact with patients. Following the inspection they had completed their safeguarding training.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Managers engaged with external stakeholders and agencies, such as insurance companies and local health services. Managers had created links with external services, such as private pathology, following an incident where a GP refused to work with the team.

Managers had links with similar services in different countries. They regularly met to discuss any learning from their services, or any training or research updates within their specialised field.

Staff, patients and carers had the opportunity to give feedback on the service to managers, influencing its future direction.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation.

The service had a positive approach to quality improvement, and we saw a number of improvement projects that had taken place. For example, creating the fast track initial assessment referral system and the introduction of the Intensive Outpatient Programme (IOP).

Staff told us they had access to attend service specific conferences. Managers had attended training courses on newer treatments within the eating disorder field and planned to offer a training session to all staff on what they had learnt.

Staff had the opportunity to participate in research. For example, the service took part in the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) funded research on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and eating disorder treatment. They also collaborated with a university on their research into body image interventions.