East London NHS Foundation Trust

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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

This meant that young people’s needs were met through the effective organisation and delivery of care. We found many examples of ward staff supporting young people to access services that were responsive to their individual needs, preferences, and circumstances. The service demonstrated a well-coordinated and responsive approach, ensuring that care delivery was flexible, personalised, and consistently met the needs of young people.

Care was organised to ensure that young people could access the right support at the right time, including input from the multidisciplinary team and external agencies where required. The service also responded effectively to cultural, religious, and communication needs, ensuring young people felt understood and supported.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Quality Statement Score: 3.

The evidence showed a good standard.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

In all sixteen care records we reviewed, we found that young people had comprehensive and personalised care plans that reflected their mental, physical, emotional, and social needs. These plans also took into account individual needs linked to protected characteristics under the Equality Act, ensuring care was inclusive and responsive to diversity.

We saw evidence of holistic initial assessments within care records. These were clearly documented and captured a broad understanding of each young person’s background, identity, and needs. This demonstrated that staff had a good understanding of each young person as an individual and were able to tailor interventions and care planning accordingly.

The service demonstrated a strong multidisciplinary approach, ensuring that young people’s psychological, medical, social, and educational needs were assessed and addressed. The therapeutic model reflected principles of social constructionism, where staff sought to understand young people’s experiences within their social and relational contexts. For example, care plans reflected the young person’s narrative and lived experiences, rather than focusing solely on diagnosis.

Quality Statement Score: 3.

The evidence showed a good standard.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Care was delivered in a way that promoted continuity across health, education, family, and community settings, supporting young people to maintain connections and prepare for transition beyond the inpatient environment.

Staff supported young people to access and maintain engagement with education, working closely with on-site education teams and external schools. This ensured continuity of learning and supported successful reintegration into school settings. Feedback from education staff confirmed that the service effectively supported both pastoral wellbeing and academic progress, enabling young people to remain engaged in education.

The service recognised the importance of family involvement and supported young people to maintain regular contact with families and carers, including through facilitated visits and ongoing communication. This helped strengthen relationships and supported recovery within the young person’s wider support network.

Staff were also responsive to young people’s spiritual and cultural needs, supporting access to their chosen place of worship within the community where appropriate. This enabled young people to maintain important aspects of their identity and wellbeing during admission. For example, during Ramadan, young people were supported to observe fasting and practice their faith, with appropriate adjustments made to care routines. Where possible, arrangements were supported for young people to spend time at home with family during Ramadan, with staff involvement to ensure safety and continuity of care. Visiting arrangements were also adapted, with extended or adjusted visiting times (for example, evening visits between 8:00pm and 8:30pm) to accommodate religious practices.

Quality Statement Score: 3.

The evidence showed a good standard.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service ensured that young people, families, and stakeholders were provided with appropriate, accurate, and up-to-date information, tailored to meet individual needs. Information was made accessible in a variety of formats, supporting understanding and engagement.

Staff ensured that young people had access to information about their treatment, local services, rights, and how to raise concerns or complaints. On admission, young people received a comprehensive welcome pack, which included key details about their care team, such as their consultant, primary nurse, and care manager, helping them to understand who was responsible for their care.

We observed a range of information boards across wards. While there was some variation in the quality and consistency of information displayed across wards, appropriate information was displayed, which included materials such as advocacy posters, QR codes for service feedback, opportunities for involvement, carers’ forums, and additional resources such as ‘tree of life’ materials and engagement activities. The service demonstrated good practice in information sharing with external stakeholders, with evidence of appropriate notifications made to statutory and external bodies, including the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and local authorities.

We scored the service as 4.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Young people were encouraged to actively participate in shaping the service environment. For example, they were involved in service user panels and contributed to staff recruitment processes, including participation in interview panels. This demonstrated a strong commitment to co-production and meaningful involvement, with young people influencing both care delivery and service development.

The service made it easy for young people to share feedback, raise concerns, and contribute ideas about their care, treatment, and the wider service. Young people were actively involved in decisions about their care, and staff ensured they were informed about changes made as a result of their feedback.

Most of the young people we spoke with told us they felt comfortable speaking to staff about anything and were aware of how to make a complaint if needed. This reflected a culture where young people felt heard, supported, and confident in raising concerns.

We saw evidence that young people could provide feedback using accessible digital tools, including QR codes, which encouraged participation and made it easier for them to share their views.

Over the previous 12 months, the service received 13 complaints, of which 9 had been resolved and 4 remained ongoing at the time of inspection. Of the resolved complaints, most were managed informally and were partially upheld. Staff followed the trust’s complaints policy and demonstrated an understanding of how to handle complaints appropriately. The deputy lead nurse had oversight of complaints, which were monitored at both ward and service level. Leaders monitored complaint activity, including themes, outcomes and learning, to support service improvement.

Quality Statement Score: 3.

The evidence showed a good standard.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service demonstrated strong collaboration with the North Central and East London Provider collaborative partners, supporting integrated care pathway, access to beds and reducing delays in accessing follow-on services.

The service ensured that young people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it, demonstrating a coordinated and equitable approach to service delivery.

Staff worked proactively to maintain continuity of care beyond discharge, including arranging access to Section 117 (S117) aftercare, community mental health services, and crisis support where required. Discharge planning was well organised and person-centred, with effective liaison with care managers and care co-ordinators to ensure appropriate support was in place prior to transition. During a Senior Management Group (SMG) meeting, we observed how staff reviewed and celebrated a complex discharge as a positive outcome, reflecting effective teamwork and coordinated planning.

Quality Statement Score: 3.

The evidence showed a good standard.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a clear commitment to promoting equity in experiences and outcomes for young people. They actively sought to identify those who may be at risk of inequality or poorer outcomes, and tailored care, support, and treatment accordingly.

We saw evidence that staff adjusted care to address communication and language barriers. For example, new admissions were given additional assessment time where required, and interpreters and Language Line services were used to support communication during ward rounds, care planning, and updates, ensuring young people were fully involved in their care.

The service showed awareness of racial inequality and potential bias, with quality improvement initiatives focused on reducing identification bias and improving experiences for families from diverse backgrounds, including during enhanced observation levels. Staff demonstrated an understanding of protected characteristics and how these may influence care experiences.

Staff were attentive to gender specific needs, including maintaining safety and dignity within single gender ward environments, and incorporating these considerations into risk management and support plans. Young females were supported to monitor and record their menstrual health appropriately, ensuring that physical health needs were recognised and managed sensitively.

Care planning reflected cultural and religious needs. For example, young people were supported to observe fasting and practice their religion, with adjustments made to care routines to uphold their rights.

Staff confirmed they received training in Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and human rights, which supported inclusive and respectful care delivery. We saw examples of staff reflecting on their communication practices, to ensure these reflected the young people’s protected characteristics. This supported more honest, respectful, and person-centred engagement with young people.

We scored the service as 3.

The evidence showed a good standard.

The service demonstrated a structured and person-centered approach to planning for the future, supporting safe transitions and ongoing recovery for young people.

Staff worked collaboratively with young people to develop personalised care and discharge plans, which reflected their needs, wishes, and feelings. These plans were holistic and forward focused, supporting young people to prepare for the next stage of their care.

We saw examples of well-structured step-down planning, such as multi-agency collaboration, including CAMHS, social care, and education supporting a return to education.

Staff ensured that all relevant professionals and agencies were involved in planning for young people with complex needs. This included arranging joint meetings with external partners, such as community CAMHS teams, social care, and school pastoral services, to ensure coordinated and seamless transitions.

This collaborative, multi-agency approach ensured that young people were well supported during discharge and beyond, with clear plans in place to maintain progress, manage risks, and promote stability within the community.