Archived: Schoen Clinic Chelsea

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

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.

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.

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 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 and carers consistently told us they were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Patients told us the service was flexible when arranging appointments, arranging emergency prescriptions and immediate support where high levels of risk were identified. Staff were described as friendly, polite, professional and approachable from arrival to departure. A patient commented “the clinical staff absolutely go above and beyond. They offer holistic care and took the time to understand me and my history. It is very patient centred care; they are fully invested in your journey; that gives me confidence”.

Patients received high quality care and support from a staff team that worked within a strong person-centred culture. Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient.

The staff and management team spoke respectfully about the people they cared for. Staff talked of valuing people and respecting their human rights and diverse needs.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Patients told us they were listened to.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. Staff followed policy to keep patient information confidential. The service had clear confidentiality policies in place that were understood and adhered to by staff.

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

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness and valued them as partners in their care. The service treated people as individuals and made sure the care and treatment met patient’s needs and preferences. Patients and carers feedback that the care they received was individual to their specific needs. Staff provided practical help, emotional support and advice to patients when they needed it.

The service supported patients with additional or specific needs. For example, for people with mobility concerns there was a lift, accessible toilet and a therapy room on the ground floor. Therapy rooms had soft lighting to support patients who were neurodivergent. Interpretation services were available for patients who did not have English as a first language. At the point of referral to the service patients were asked to detail any specific requirements they may have so that any adjustments could be made by staff on site.

The service provided information in accessible formats to meet people’s needs. The website was inclusive and easy to navigate. Each clinician and therapist recorded a short video explaining the treatments they offered and the conditions they treated. This helped people make informed choices about who they wanted to work with. The provider also published blogs on a range of mental health topics and had recently introduced podcasts to share information and raise awareness.

Information brochures were available in the clinic reception area and could also be downloaded from the service website.

Staff worked well to meet patients’ individual needs. Clinicians and therapists redirected patients to other team members when they felt this would better suit the patient’s specific needs.

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 people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients told us they were involved and in control of decisions around their care. Patients said they felt listened to and supported by staff and had sufficient time during consultations to make an informed decision about the choice of treatments available to them. Feedback from patients showed that consultant psychiatrists discussed the benefits of each option and sign posted patients to additional information if required.

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.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues related to the patient group they saw, such as refeeding syndrome and increased risk of self-harm.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients by following established escalation protocols in the clinic.

The service operated on an outpatient basis and did not provide acute or crisis mental health care. All referrals were carefully screened to ensure the service could meet the patient’s needs safely. If an initial assessment identified that a patient was high risk or unsuitable for outpatient treatment, staff signposted patients and carers to more appropriate services and supported them to access these services. These included local NHS crisis teams, inpatient mental health hospitals, or NHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). This process helped maintain patient safety and ensures continuity of care.

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 always deliver person-centred care.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of staff and supported and enabled them to deliver person-centred care.

The provider supported staff with their wellbeing. Staff said they felt respected, supported and valued. All staff spoke very positively about working at the service and they were proud of the work of their team. Staff described a positive, safe working environment with the freedom to speak up, emphasising an open and transparent culture.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.

Staff received regular supervision, reflective practice and debriefs to support their well‑being and identify any additional support needs. The service used the Balint group model, enabling clinicians to discuss challenging cases with a focus on the emotional dynamics between doctor and patient rather than purely clinical or technical aspects of treatment.

The service actively listened to and acted on staff feedback. Following a staff survey in June 2025, leaders implemented an action plan to improve morale, wellbeing, engagement and communication. For example, the service introduced monthly senior leadership team (SLT) drop-in sessions where staff could ask questions directly. They also published ‘You Said, We Did’ updates after each engagement activity to show that concerns raised were being addressed.