- SERVICE PROVIDER
North East London NHS Foundation Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Report from 28 August 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings - Specialist community mental health services for children and young people
Our view of the service
We undertook this short notice announced inspection of Redbridge Emotional Well Being and Mental Health Service as part of our continual checks on the safety and quality of healthcare services. Our inspection focused on areas highlighted in the recommendations of a Regulation 28 Prevention of Future Deaths report issued by the coroner following the unexpected death of a young person referred to the service in 2022. We also followed up on whistleblowing concerns shared with us about the service in 2024. We visited Redbridge Emotional Well Being and Mental Health Service on 3 and 4 March 2025.
Redbridge Emotional Well Being and Mental Health Service is a specialist community mental health (CAMHS) team providing support to children, young people and their families in the London Borough of Redbridge. It is run by North-East London NHS Foundation Trust (NELFT). The service is available to families with children and young people from birth to their 18th birthday.
As part of our inspection, we spoke with 12 relatives/carers of children and young people accessing the service. We spoke with 19 staff, including multidisciplinary team and senior leaders. We reviewed 12 patient treatment and care records, attended 4 meetings and observed 3 patient appointments. We also sought feedback from 4 partner agencies regularly working with the service.
We previously comprehensively inspected the trust’s CAMHS services in 2019. We rated the safe, responsive and well led domains as requires improvement. We rated the effective and caring domains as good. Overall, we rated the service as requires improvement. The provider was in breach of Regulation 17 Good governance, Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment and Regulation 18 Safe staffing.
We did not re-rate the service on this occasion, as we did not visit the CAMHS services NELFT provides in three other North-East London boroughs or in Kent. During this inspection we focused on selected quality statements under the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led key questions.
During this inspection we saw that whilst the service had made some improvements in response to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report (Regulation 28), whistleblowing concerns and previous inspection findings, there was more to do. We had concerns about the long waiting times for assessment and treatment, how risk for people who waited was kept under review and the high caseloads held by some staff. These were breaches of Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment. Not all governance processes operated effectively, which was a breach of Regulation 17 Good governance.
- Children and young people did not access care in a timely way. Over 60% were waiting for either initial telephone triage following referral, or for initial assessment or treatment. One hundred and eighty-two young people were waiting for initial telephone triage. Eight hundred and twenty-three young people had been initially telephone triaged and were waiting for initial assessment. A further seven hundred and eighty-five young people were waiting for treatment, with 361 (46%) waiting over 18 weeks.
- As a result of high demand for services, children and young people experienced delays from when they were referred to starting their treatment. There was a group of young people on the waiting list who were about to turn 18, or had turned 18, and had not yet had an initial assessment, affecting their transition to adult services.
- Caseloads varied across pathways and were highest among staff working in triage. Some staff reported individual caseloads over 90 and one said theirs could reach 110.
- Systems to keep young people safe while they waited for treatment required improvement as they did not always work effectively. Systems to identify, manage and mitigate risks for children and young people who were receiving treatment also needed improving.
- Governance systems and processes needed to be strengthened. Audits were not always properly completed, blank prescription forms were not managed appropriately and the team risk register did not capture all identified risks.
However,
- Most carers described the staff as kind, caring and respectful. Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients and carers showed they were respectful and responsive, and provided support and advice when needed. Staff held regular multidisciplinary meetings where they shared information about patients.
- Most care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery orientated. People using the service knew how to complain. Staff handled complaints appropriately. Staff ensured that patients and carers could easily access information on a range of topics, including local services, helplines, how to complain, healthy eating and safeguarding.
- Leaders were working hard to improve staff morale and wellbeing. Most staff we spoke with said the leaders were visible and approachable. Staff reported a friendly, open and supportive culture between peers and the leadership team.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 12 parents/carers of children and young people using the service. Their feedback was mixed.
Whilst most said the service was good once the young person had been seen, carers described the detrimental impact of the long waiting lists on their mental health and quality of life. One carer said: “I think they can be good but there was a long and difficult wait”. Another said: “We waited over three years. It’s been a long battle, an uphill struggle”.
Carers shared concerns about poor communication from the service while waiting, particularly a lack of communication about how long they may have to wait.
Feedback in relation to care planning was mixed. Most relatives and carers said they did not have a copy of the young person’s care plan. Some said staff listened and discussed the treatment plan with them. Carers’ views on staff understanding of the young persons’ needs also varied. At the same time, most carers described the staff as kind, caring and respectful.
Most carers were aware of how to complain about the service if they needed to. However, 2 carers shared their reservations about making a complaint in case this impacted negatively on the young person’s care.
The service sought the views of young people’s carers’ on their service experience through a survey. Most respondents rated the service “good or very good” in the 12 months leading up to our inspection. However, 7 carers told us they had not been offered an opportunity to give feedback on care.