Cygnet Bury Forestwood

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.

At our last assessment we rated caring as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. Staff mostly treated young people with compassion and kindness. They respected young peoples’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of young people and supported them to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved young people in care planning and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

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 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 young people showed that they were mostly discreet, respectful and responsive, providing young people with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. For example, we observed a staff member sat on the floor carrying out a colouring activity with a young person, and staff members comforting a young person who was distressed. However, during our evening visit we observed some staff chatting amongst themselves and not interacting with a young person they were supporting, whilst on observations.

Staff mostly supported young people to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. There was evidence of young people’s views within care planning documents. However, care plans were not written in accessible language and there was little evidence that young people had been offered a copy of their care plans.

Staff directed young people to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. For example, staff made referrals to speech and language therapy where required.

Young people did not always say that staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Young people told us that some staff were really caring and showed interest in them, whereas they felt that other staff did not care about them. Some young people told us they felt staff were rough during restraint. We reviewed 4 restraint incidents and did not find concerns about staff restraining patients inappropriately. We found that concerns raised by young people were thoroughly investigated, including where possible reviewing CCTV. Where concerns were substantiated managers took appropriate action.

Staff understood the individual needs of young people, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Care plans were thorough and detailed and considered young people’s individual needs.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards young people without fear of the consequences.

Quality Statement Score:3

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 young people – for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting young peoples’ specific communication needs. Young people had communication plans and staff mostly provided speech and language input where required.

Staff ensured that young people could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by young people and managers ensured that staff and young people had easy access to interpreters and/or signers when required.

The Forestwood school had been awarded the Rainbow Flag Award which encourages a whole school approach to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender+ inclusion. Staff were aware of young people's preferred gender and carers told us they mostly used young people’s preferred pronouns.

Young people had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances.

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.

Staff read young people’s rights to them, in a way they could understand, on admission and then every 2 weeks subsequently.

Staff involved young people in developing their care plans. There was a ‘my views’ section within care plans which reflected young people’s views and wishes regarding their care. However, care plans were not always written in accessible language.

Young people took part in weekly ward rounds and staff supported them to discuss their care and treatment during these meetings.

Young people had access to advocacy. Information about advocacy was available on the wards and young people were supported to contact advocacy when they needed to do so. Advocacy staff attended the service once a week and they told us that staff at the service worked collaboratively with the advocacy service to resolve any concerns brought up by young people.

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 self harm, self neglect and physical health problems and care planned for these accordingly.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, young people. Risk assessments were up to date and amended following incidents. Staff discussed risk concerns and how to support young people with these, during handovers.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when young peoples’ behaviours became heightened.

Quality Statement Score:3

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and mostly supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff mostly felt respected, supported and valued. The staff survey showed that 85% of staff agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘in my team there is a feeling of respect for each other’ and 94% of staff agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘my line manager treats me with respect.’

Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. The most recent staff service showed that 82% of staff either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘I am proud to work for Cygnet.’

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Support included access to a healthcare package for all staff.

However, some staff felt there was a pressure to return to work following assaults from young people and they raised concerns about discretionary sick pay. We raised this with managers and they told us each incident was reviewed on an individual basis with staff involved. Between September 2025 and January 2026, 16 discretionary sick pay requests were submitted following workplace injuries. Of those, 11 were fully approved, one was partially approved and 4 were rejected due to lack of evidence. Staff also told us that they did not always get their breaks.

The provider recognised staff success within the service – for example, through staff awards.

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