East London NHS Foundation Trust

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 inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating has remained good.

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

Staff treated people who used services and patients with compassion and kindness. They respected people’s privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of people and supported them to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved people in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided.

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.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Across the community mental health pathway, staff treated people who used their services with compassion and kindness. They respected their privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of people who used their services and supported people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. We observed staff treat people with kindness, compassion and empathy.

Staff gave people help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. People who used the service said staff treated them well and behaved kindly. We spoke to 16 people who used services and they all said they felt involved in care planning, and staff were respectful and polite. They felt the service had been very beneficial to them.

The service provided examples of feedback given by people who used services through the patient reported experience measure (PREM) between November 2024 and October 2025. These were shared with local teams every 6 to 8 weeks. People who used services mainly said they felt listened to and understood by staff and were involved in their care and treatment.

Staff sought feedback on the quality of care provided. There were leaflets in reception that explained how to make a complaint. However, not all the people we spoke to were aware of how to make a formal complaint.

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.

The service made adjustments for disabled patients. When people needed to meet with staff onsite, these sites were all wheelchair accessible.

Staff received training in recognising and responding to autistic people and people with a learning disability. The service did not provide information on compliance with this training. However, staff we spoke to during our inspection confirmed they had completed this training.

Managers and staff could provide information in accessible formats and had access to interpretation services for people with English as a second language. Staff ensured that people who used their services and patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, and how to complain. Staff gave examples of using interpreters on calls and at face to-face meetings..

In the morning planning meetings staff discussed the individual language needs of patients and how best to communicate with them including booking an interpreter. The teams had a diverse caseload with several people who needed an interpreter.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The community-based mental health services for adults of working age service promoted people’s independence, and ensured people had control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. During our inspection we saw examples of staff promoting independence for people who used services. Teams included community connectors, who would help with community engagement, employment support, and could sign post to appropriate organisations for other social needs such as housing.

People who used these services were given information to make decisions about their medication. Consultants, pharmacists and non-medical prescribers spoke with people about medication choices, side effects, monitoring and benefits. This meant people were able to make informed decisions about their medications. We saw evidence in care records that people’s requests to have medication reviews led to medication review appointments.

Staff were able to refer carers to the local authority for a carers assessment. Managers we spoke to told us that there currently were no forums for carers, however this was something they wanted to implement. For example, the Early Intervention Service (Tower Hamlets) had started a quality improvement project on how to involve carers and families.

Following our inspection, the service provided information that showed they were implementing the Triangle of Care (TOC) in April 2026. The Triangle of Care is a therapeutic alliance and quality improvement program run by the carers trust that creates an equal partnership between professionals, service users, and unpaid carers. The trust was self-assessing and will present to the carers trust in February 2027. The trust also provided information that they were working on improving the consist of Dialog completion, including workshops and training. The trust advised this will be complete in December 2026.

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 we spoke to were aware of and dealt with specific risk issues. Staff met regularly as a multidisciplinary team (MDT). We saw discussions included identifying risks to, or posed by, people who used services and staff developed appropriate MDT plans to manage these risks. Staff met in a daily morning meetings to discuss new and emerging risks and any action needed.

Some teams had staff who had completed training on conflict resolution. Compliance with this training was 100% across teams that participated. However, only Bedfordshire, Newham and Tower Hamlets offered this training; City, Hackney and Luton did not offer this training as it was not mandatory. Staff were not required to complete training on reducing restrictive practice. This training aims to enable staff to develop knowledge and skills in the least restrictive management of people when they have a heightened emotional reaction.

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

Staff we spoke to across the community service told us they enjoyed working in the service. They felt respected, valued, and were proud to work in the team. They told us management cared about their well-being and enabled them to deliver person centred care. Staff felt supported in their roles and were able to raise concerns with management. However, staff also told us that they felt the nature of their roles were changing as they were being asked to incorporate social work into their roles. Staff did not feel they were being adequately trained and supported for this. Following our inspection the trust told us that the service was moving away from care coordinator roles toward profession-specific responsibilities within multidisciplinary teams. There was a social work professional development programme to cover statutory duties, and new social care delivery structures were completed in Hackney, in progress in Luton and Bedford, and at the discussion stage in Tower Hamlets.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Staff in some teams had access to regular reflective practice sessions. Not all teams had the psychology staff or capacity to offer regular reflective practice. Managers recognised staff success within the service. Staff felt their work was recognised and success rewarded within their own teams. Following our inspection the trust told us that workforce planning was ongoing to align psychological therapy capacity with national targets and local demand. This meant that psychologists did not always have capacity to provide reflective practice for staff in teams. Reflective practice was not mandatory in community services and was dependent on the manager, but facilitators were provided to teams upon request.

Staff spoke positively about the range of development opportunities available and about how managers supported them to develop. We saw multiple examples of staff being supported to learn other roles, support other departments or have additional professional development.