Cygnet Hospital Colchester

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

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

The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. We spoke with 2 carers who said they felt their relatives were safe and were treated with kindness and respect. The service understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

Staff were respectful, and mostly responsive when caring for patients. Patients told us that there were enough staff on the ward, although they sometimes had to wait for staff to respond to their requests. Some patients were uncomfortable that staff were using their native language on the ward and not English.

At the recent MHA inspection, the generic advocate for the hospital told us they provided a drop-in service every week. They provided support with benefits, housing, section 132 rights, appeals and ward reviews. They told us that advocacy was used well within the hospital and that any concerns raised to the service were addressed and dealt with in a timely manner.

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 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Staff were able to give examples of personalised care for individual patients, and it was clear they knew their patients well.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. We saw that carers were also included in this during ward rounds.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. The hospital had a small multi faith room that patients could use.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences. All staff were confident they could speak up and raise concerns with leaders.

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 their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff had a good understanding of each patients’ mental health, their risk history and their social circumstances outside hospital. Occupational therapists and activity co-ordinators supported patients to pursue their interests and hobbies.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on.

Patients and staff came from diverse cultural backgrounds. Staff recognised this and provided facilities to meet patients’ cultural and religious needs.

The service was able to demonstrate considerations and actions taken to ensure person centred care was provided to patients with protected characteristics. This included staff supporting patients to attend local places of worship, obtaining items to enable patients to practice their faith and catering for religious and culturally significant festivals.

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

Staff made sure patients could access information on their rights and how to complain. Up to date information about the Mental Health Act, advocacy, the Care Quality Commission and making complaints was displayed on well-organised notice boards at the hospital. Patients were given information about their rights and were able to provide feedback to staff. Their views and wishes were shared during 1-1 meetings with their key nurse, therapy sessions, during ward rounds and discharge planning meetings and community meetings.

Patients could make phone calls in private. Staff did not restrict patients access to their mobile telephones or devices.

Patients had access to drinks and most had their own snacks but were also able to request food outside of set mealtimes.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. The service responded to these and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff involved patients and gave them access to their care plans and risk assessments. Patients and their carers attended ward rounds and were involved in decisions about care, treatment and discharge.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues and care planned for these accordingly. During our inspection we saw there were patients who had been assessed as needing enhanced observations and this was reviewed regularly by staff.

Patients could give feedback on the service, and their treatment and staff supported them to do this. The service held regular community meetings.

One patient had needs regarding mealtimes. Staff took time to explore this with a family member to ensure they had a complete understanding so they could provide personalised care to the patient to keep them safe and well.

Staff made sure patients could access advocacy services. Information on how to contact the independent mental health advocacy service was displayed on a notice board.

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 said the leadership team were approachable, supportive and engaged with staff on the wards. Staff and managers said they found senior managers at the hospital to be supportive.

The provider’s staff sickness and absence were low with the short-term sickness rate at 3.6% and the long-term sickness rate being 0% at the time of inspection.

The service recognised staff success within the service. The service had a staff recognition scheme, where staff could nominate an employee of the month. Each month the winner received a certificate and a prize from the hospital director. The provider celebrated key dates such as ‘international nurses’ day’. In the week before the inspection, staff had celebrated ‘support workers day’ and each support worker received a cake, gift and a thank you message.

Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. Staff we spoke with took joy from building relationships with patients, getting to know them and seeing their recovery. They praised Cygnet as an employer and felt valued as a member of the team.

Staff had good morale and told us they enjoyed working at the hospital and that they received good support from colleagues and managers.