Ellern Mede Barnet

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated carers and representatives from other organisations with kindness and respect.

During our site visit, we observed staff interacting with patients in a kind, respectful and responsive manner. In the meetings we attended, staff demonstrated they knew patients and their families well. Staff we spoke with were dedicated and clearly knew patients very well.

Patients we spoke with told us they found staff supportive and respectful. However, several patients said that they did not feel able to speak up about their care. Patients felt that some staff did not always interact with them as adults, and some felt that the terms ‘bed rest’ or talk of being moved to the downstairs ward was sometimes used as a threat.

Carers described staff as kind, welcoming and patient, although some said staff could sometimes be sharp with patients and that meal support could be improved. They described good communication, a helpful multidisciplinary team, good safeguarding protections, and involvement of the local community mental health team. They particularly praised the consultant psychiatrist who would call them directly with updates, which they had never experienced before. Carers felt listened to, and able to make complaints or suggestions, and that the service was open to questions. They were aware of the provider’s policy to minimise restrictions on patients when possible, including providing planned breaks from physical restraint for naso-gastric feeding. They were very appreciative of the parents’ support group and family therapy provided by the service. Overall, they felt that ‘managers were all over everything,’ and were pleased with the progress their relatives were making.

We sought feedback from partner agencies who regularly worked with the service. Their feedback about the staff was very positive.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. The service took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture, backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff considered patients’ communication needs and preferences and documented those in their care plans. There was strong consideration of autism within the pathway with two staff being trained as autism champions.

Staff we spoke with said they worked together to personalise care where standard approaches did not work. This included customised meal plans, supporting sensory sensitivities, choice of activities for different needs and interests, and identifying least restrictive practices.

Patients had a choice of food to meet their dietary requirements and to account for allergies and intolerances. Staff supported diets such as vegan, vegetarian, halal, kosher or gluten-free on an individual basis. Kitchen staff joined the community meetings monthly.

Staff ensured that patients had access to spiritual support. Patients could be supported to access a local church or place of worship.

Feedback from patients and carers who we spoke with demonstrated that individual needs were met well. Patients said that staff knew their preferences and interacted with them.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted patients’ independence, so they knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients told us they were satisfied with their level of involvement in care and access to their care plan. They said they received information and updates about the treatment progress. Carers said that the service supported patients to make decisions for themselves, including about medicines. Carers said they were able to contact staff, including managers and doctors, when needed.

Patients were aware of an independent advocacy service they could access. The independent advocate attended the service weekly and met with patients.

Carers said staff had explained consent, confidentiality and how they shared their relative’s information.

Staff supported patients to complete their own PILRIMP (patient inclusion in least restrictive intervention management plan), safety and care plans. Reducing restrictive practices meetings were held regularly and included an expert by experience. There was a clear commitment to reducing restrictive practices.

Although facilities were available, no patients were self-catering or self-medicating at the time of the inspection.

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

Staff had a good understanding of risks specific to their patient group and of each patient’s individual risks. Risks to patients, and any changes to them, were discussed daily. Staff reviewed observation levels daily.

Patients and carers we spoke with thought that staff understood and met individual needs well, arranging external health care appointments promptly when needed. We observed staff sitting with patients and providing emotional support, reassurance or distraction when they became distressed.

Patients were given space to raise issues of concern at weekly community meetings. Some recent changes made as a result of feedback included changing cleaning products in response to concerns about the odour of cleaning materials, and a request for a weekend newsletter patient involvement session (to be arranged at weekends).

Some patients and carers felt that the garden area could be improved to make this a more therapeutic space. A punch bag was available for patients’ use in the garden area. A new kitchenette area was being installed within the annex for patients’ use.

Patients within the annex noted that there had been problems with the showers and heating in recent months and although this was being addressed, it had taken some time. They also said they could not access their bedrooms or toilets during the day, as the annex was not staffed at that time. Managers advised that this practice was being reviewed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff we spoke with were positive and proud about working for their team and the provider. Staff said their work had a positive impact on patients and expressed satisfaction in their roles. Staff confirmed that they received regular supervision and appraisal. Staff completed assessments of competency and said there were opportunities for development and progression.

Support was provided to staff following incidents from managers and peers, as well as pastoral and psychology support. Staff could access additional resources through the employer’s wellbeing app.

The provider recognised staff success within the service, for example through staff monthly awards and joint celebrations with patients.

In the most recent staff satisfaction survey from 2025, areas for improvement identified included maintaining work-life balance, improving communication, and consistency of leadership. There was an action plan in place to address these areas.