- Independent mental health service
Ellern Mede Ridgeway
Assessment report published 22 May 2026
Contents
Ratings - Specialist eating disorder services
Our view of the service
Date of inspection: 10 March to 15 April 2026.
Ellern Mede Ridgeway is an inpatient specialist eating disorder service for children and young people aged 8 to 18 years. It is based in the London Borough of Barnet and is run by Oak Tree Forest Limited, an independent provider group.
The service provides treatment to young people with complex presentations which may combine eating disorders or disordered eating and co-occurring mental health conditions.
Ellern Mede Ridgeway admits both privately funded patients and those funded by NHS commissioners from across the UK. The hospital comprises 28 beds across 3 wards for male and female patients, some of whom are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
The service registered with CQC in 2011 to deliver the regulated activities: Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983; Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. There was a Registered Manager in post at the time of our inspection.
We carried out an unannounced site visit from 10 to 12 March 2026. We visited all 3 wards:
- Lask Ward, 10 bed high dependency unit (HDU)
- Nunn Ward, 12 bed general ward
- The Cottage, 6 bed pre-discharge unit.
At the time of our visit, a total of 12 patients were admitted across all wards.
We previously inspected Ellern Mede Ridgeway in 2022 and rated it good, with no breaches of regulations identified.
This inspection was comprehensive and covered all key questions and quality statements. We have combined the scores for these to achieve the overall rating. Following this inspection, the overall rating has remained good.
We found several areas of good practice. We observed caring interactions between staff and patients. Staff demonstrated a clear commitment to reducing restrictive practices. When staff used restraint as the last resort, they were trained to do so and did it safely. Safeguarding processes were comprehensive and well-embedded. Care planning was highly personalised, with young people’s voice evident throughout. Medicines were managed well and patients received the medicines they needed when they needed them. There were robust governance arrangements in place.
We also identified some areas where best practice could be improved. Inconsistencies in communication sometimes resulted in variation in how staff followed individual care plans. The care environment needed further improvement for the needs of neurodivergent patients and some work on this was ongoing. Procedures around managing risk items and patient feedback mechanisms could benefit from better clarity. Some staff reported low morale and wanted better communication and support from senior managers.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Mental Health Act
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act (MHA), the Code of Practice and the guiding principles. Staff had access to the provider’s dedicated mental health administrator.
Patients had easy access to independent mental health advocacy, in line with their statutory rights. The independent advocate visited the service weekly. Most young people said they knew about independent advocacy and who the advocate was.
The care and treatment records we reviewed demonstrated that when patients were detained under the MHA, staff read and explained their rights and repeated this regularly.
Staff stored copies of patients' detention papers and associated records correctly and they were available to staff who needed access to them. Relevant audits took place regularly.
Staff ensured that patients were able to take Section 17 leave (permission for patients to leave hospital) when this had been granted.
Staff requested an opinion from a second opinion appointed doctor (SOAD) when necessary.
Mental Capacity Act
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), with 98% having completed training in the MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
We saw clear evidence that staff had obtained and documented consent from patients and carers appropriately. Most carers we spoke with said staff had explained consent, confidentiality and information sharing clearly.
Staff had considered Gillick competence (used to determine whether young people under 16 years of age can consent for their own treatment) or capacity for those aged over 16 years. We saw evidence that staff had assessed capacity on a decision-specific basis and documented the outcome appropriately.
Application of the MCA was part of the provider’s regular audit schedule.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 7 patients and 6 parents or carers of patients. We observed a community meeting and 3 patients’ multidisciplinary team (MDT) review meetings (with consent from patients).
Young people told us they felt safe at Ellern Mede Ridgeway, although some shared that they found it hard being in hospital. Most said they found staff kind, supportive and respectful. One young person said that staff “actually listen to how you feel”. Others said staff knew what kind of things they liked and provided reassurance and distraction when they or someone else became distressed. Young people were positive about the activities on offer, and most knew how to access independent advocacy. Most said staff carried out restraint safely and considerately. However, 3 young people were not always happy with how some staff carried out observations, and 2 were unhappy with the noise from the ongoing building works. We also heard some variation in how young people said they would raise concerns about their care, indicating this process could benefit from better clarity. For example, one young person said they would go to their parent with any concerns, another to a consultant or therapist, and another that they would likely not tell anyone.
Carers’ feedback was positive overall. They described staff as supportive, kind and responsive and said that care was tailored to individual needs. Carers thought the hospital environment was safe and the service was well-staffed. They received regular communication about treatment progress. Carers knew how to complain and expressed confidence that changes would be made as a result of their feedback. However, 2 carers spoke about some inconsistencies in care and treatment, for example in communication or meal support.
Young people and carers had regular opportunities to give feedback to the service and completed annual patient and carer surveys. The most recent surveys were completed in 2025 and staff had acted on the feedback received.