Ellern Mede Moorgate Also known as Oak Tree Forest Limited

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 inspection we rated this key question inadequate. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect. The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

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.

Young people we spoke with were positive about staff and told us they felt that staff respected their privacy and dignity. Young people felt in control regarding the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and support.

During assessment we spoke with 13 staff, hospital manager and director of transformation and service delivery. They told us all young people were treated as individuals and all attempts were made to support this. Individual care plans were completed by the nurses and handed over on a regular basis to healthcare assistants. This included how the young people would prefer their care to be carried out, including their wishes about privacy and dignity and any triggers that could cause trauma.

We received positive feedback from an external holistic therapy service who described the staff as thoughtful, caring, and supportive when they visited and ensured the young person’s dignity was always respected. Feedback from an annual quality review in May 2024 indicated that young people shared that there are some amazing staff members and what makes them good is that they listen and are understanding.

We observed staff interactions with young people which were positive. The service organised and celebrated events such as birthdays and young people’s successes.

We received feedback from 2 relatives who told us that they were happy the service was meeting young people’s individual needs. Young people and relatives confirmed they were aware of the complaints process.

Staff told us they include young people in least restrictive intervention management plans to ensure appropriate use of techniques and therapies for the client group and to meet their individual needs. Staff spoke to us about making adjustments for young people to meet their needs. Staff told us they had access to interpreters, advocacy, and external services to support physical health needs and dietary requirements.

We observed staff treating young people as individuals and delivering care according to their specific plans. We saw staff adapting communication and supporting young people’s individual needs.

We reviewed 4 care plans that were person centred and developed individualised care plans dependent on the young people’s spiritual needs, physical health needs and mental health needs. The service received feedback from both young people and family members and used this feedback to ensure that plans were personalised to the individual. Community meeting minutes showed that the service asked young people about safety in the ward environment, restrictions and other improvements that could be made to ensure that the service supported individual needs as much as possible.

The feedback we gained from 2 relatives and 3 young people indicated that people had access to a range of activities and monthly community meetings. People were supported to maintain relationships. Staff encouraged and developed ways for people to access things that were important to them, for example, cultural and spiritual support. Young people and carers had an awareness of the complaints process. Carers told us they could meet with the doctor and ask questions about medication. The service had developed a good relationship with, and ensured people had access to advocacy services to make sure their voices were heard.

During our assessment we gained feedback from 13 staff and the hospital director and director of transformation. Staff supported people to communicate and make informed decisions about their care. They undertook a range of learning and development opportunities to develop ways to improve care delivery. The service linked in with external teams to support young people to maintain independence and control, for example, speech and language therapists.

Staff promoted people’s independence and enabled choice and control over their own care, treatment, and activities. We observed staff supporting young people to stay connected with family and friends. We observed information boards on the ward with various posters, including accessing advocates, therapies available, local services in the area, helpline numbers, complaints posters and ward specific activities.

Managers undertook regular audits, reviews, and meetings to ensure oversight over people's care and treatment. The service had a good and varied multi-disciplinary team with access to allied health professionals such as occupational therapy, psychology, and dietician. We looked at 4 care and treatment records which demonstrated detailed positive behaviour support plans in place to maximise independence, choice, and control.

Young people said staff were available when they needed them for support and were helpful, although one young person told us that staff are not always visible and often in the office.

Staff used several techniques to identify young people's needs and preferences. Staff told us they would always knock on young people’s doors, ensuring female staff are involved in personal care with the female young people and communicate with the young people before an intervention as much as possible. Staff we spoke with told us there were clear processes in place to deal with people’s immediate needs, especially if they are in pain, discomfort, or distress. The staff were trained and knowledgeable in grounding techniques and coping strategies for the individual young person.

We observed some positive interactions between staff and young people. We observed one interaction where a young person was distressed during an engagement. The interaction was being managed well and techniques used to help decrease their distress. All staff undertook professional boundaries training and compliance at the time of inspection was 96.5%.

Records showed that staff undertook training in moving and handling, basic life support, first aid training and national early warning score training, and at the time of our assessment staff were 87% compliant. Staff also completed training in pressure area care and sepsis.

Most of the staff we interviewed spoke positively about the service, leaders, and managers, however there were a number of changes planned for the service in terms of transformation in service delivery. Some staff roles were changing due to this which provided a mixed response for people’s wellbeing. Staff told us that the hospital manager was always available to offer support. Staff worked well together, and they were proud of the way the whole team had made improvements to the service being delivered. Staff were positive about training and development and had opportunities to give feedback on the service and undertake learning. Staff attended team meetings, had regular supervision and annual appraisals.

The service provided wellbeing and support sessions for staff and psychology supported staff with reflective practice sessions. The service celebrated successes and had an ‘extra mile’ award in which both young people and staff voted.