Cygnet Bury Hudson

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 assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

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

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 mostly treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients evidenced that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We conducted Short Observation Framework for Inspection 2 (SOFI2) observations in the service, which is a structured observation which captures people’s experience of care during the on-site assessment. Our observations showed that staff interactions with patients were good or neutral.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Patients told us that they felt listened to, out of 26 patients that told us about their experiences of staff, 22 patients told us that staff were respectful and polite. 4 patients said staff were not very supportive. With one patient saying “Some staff just stay in the office and don't particularly interact with patients”

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. Records evidenced and patients told us that they were involved in services in the local community, including accessing health services and volunteering for local charities.

Patients said staff treated them well and mostly behaved appropriately towards them. However patients said some staff sat together and talked amongst themselves rather than engaging with patients.

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. Records were accessed electronically via computers, staff had individual logs in to access the electronic care records.

We treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

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.

The service made adjustments for disabled patients – for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs. We saw examples of symbol cards created for patients to express their feelings and emotions when it was difficult for them to express this verbally. The building was accessible, with a lift to access the different levels and the building had ground level access

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. Information was displayed on notice boards in the wards. There were welcome packs for each ward which included information about the models of care, values of the service, what to expect and how to complain.

The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group. Images supported the written text.

Staff could access information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients. If needed documents could be translated into different languages. Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters when required.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. However, feedback from patients regarding food was varied; 3 patients told us they made their own food, 7 told us that there lacked choice and the quality was poor. An example was that there were too many chips on the menu. The chefs attended the morning meetings and people’s council meetings to listen to patients feedback and try to resolve this. A food forum had been established for patients to co produce the new menu. Patients gave views on the menu and what could be improved. Recent community meeting minutes showed that patients were happy with the food and that “the new menus were good”.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. A weekly bible study group took place in the service. Visiting faith ministers attended the hospital to offer support to patients including a priest, a vicar and an Imam. The Imam attended the hospital twice a week. Some patients had leave to attend church on Sundays. Patients were supported to practice their faith, with 6 patients engaged with Ramadan. Eid was celebrated in the service.

We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients were involved in their review meetings. We observed a meeting where the patient was at the centre of their care, was listened to and their requests were considered.

Patients were supported to develop their skills as part of their recovery. This included paid work opportunities within the service. Educational opportunities at the recovery college, including Gardening, Painting and Decorating, Woodwork, Maths and English.

Patients had the opportunity to express themselves via music with the Music2Empower project (individualised music therapy) within the service. Patients we spoke to really valued this opportunity to learn new skills and have an opportunity for their creative outlet.

The gym was extremely valued by patients, records evidenced this was well used and we saw there was a variety of exercise equipment which was well maintained for patients to use.

Advocates attended the wards regularly and supported patients within meetings if required. They also supported patients to raise concerns and ensured they understood their rights.

We listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

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, such as diabetes and epilepsy and care planned for these accordingly.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. The service followed the enabling environments principles in a forensic setting. This framework consists of 10 values, which are: Belonging, Boundaries, Communication, Development, Involvement, Safety, Structure, Empowerment, Leadership and Openness. However this was not consistently shared via handovers.

Leaders had equipped staff with prompts of how to respond to patients in distress, these included staying calm, using I statements, encouraging regulation, setting boundaries, reducing power struggles and reinforcing the positives.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. However, when needed staff used physical interventions which they had been trained to safely use.

We care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff, and we support and enable them to always deliver person centred 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.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff told us their managers were approachable and supportive.

Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. Every staff member we spoke with was positive about the service.

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

The service’s staff sickness and absence was an average of 5% for the last 12 months from March 2025 to March 2026. Turnover was an average of 2% for the last 12 months from March 2025 to March 2026.

Monthly staff forums took place. These meetings were chaired by a clinical services manager or hospital manager and attended by a staff member from each ward. Staff raised concerns that were discussed in the forum and actions agreed. Staff also provided updates on progress that had been made in the service.

Staff were involved in after action reviews following incidents to reflect on incidents, what went well and areas for learning. Staff also received reflective practice especially for those staff supporting individual patients as park of bespoke packages of care.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.

Staff achievements were recognised with long service awards and character of care awards. These were also shared within team meetings to acknowledge colleagues’ achievements.