Cygnet Hospital Colchester

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

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

Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all patients on admission. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice. The ward team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the ward. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit patients. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 5 care records during the assessment. The service maximised the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff completed a comprehensive mental health assessment of each patient either on admission or soon after.

Patients had their physical health assessed soon after admission and regularly reviewed during their time on the ward.

Staff developed a comprehensive care plan for each patient that met their mental and physical health needs. Care plans were all personalised and recovery orientated. Plans for treatment set out the patients’ goals, as well as arrangements for occupational therapy, psychology and risk management. They included the views of patients and carers. However, some care plans we looked at had administrative errors due to copy and paste being utilised.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important to them and in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Patients were admitted to the ward with a mental illness diagnosis. Care and treatment involved prescribing medicines and offering therapeutic activities. Psychology groups and interventions included mindfulness sessions and walking therapy. There was a gym instructor at the hospital who assisted patients to use the on-site gym.

Staff ensured that patients had good access to physical healthcare, including access to specialists when needed. One member of staff described utilising a speech and language therapist to assist a patient to communicate.

The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients in the service. The patients had access to occupational therapists, and a GP, and the service employed physical health nurses and doctors.

Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge. We were given examples of support workers being supported to become fully qualified nurses.

Various therapies were planned throughout each week including mindfulness, social skills group, psychology drop-in sessions, coping skills, activities of daily living and occupational therapy sessions.

Staff used technology to support patient care, this included patients having a personal device to communicate with family and carers.

Managers supported permanent staff to develop through yearly, constructive appraisals of their work. All staff were up to date with their appraisal.

Managers supported staff through regular, constructive clinical supervision of their work. Clinical and managerial supervision compliance was 97% at the time of inspection.

Managers identified the learning needs of staff and provided them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge. Staff were generally positive about the development opportunities offered, and we saw several cases of staff stepping up to higher‑level duties and moving into permanent roles.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked effectively across teams and services to support people, making sure they only need to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when they move between different services.

Staff held regular multidisciplinary meetings to discuss patients and improve their care. At these meetings, staff reviewed the patients’ progress and the effects of medication.

Staff made sure they shared clear information about patients and any changes in their care, including during handover meetings. Nurses and healthcare assistants held a handover meeting at the start of each shift.

Information relating to care, help and support, religious support, advocacy access, activities, and feedback on care were displayed on the ward notice board for patients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing so they could maximise their independence, choice and control, live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff identified patients’ physical health needs and recorded them in their care plans.

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives – for example, through participation in smoking cessation schemes, mindfulness eating and screening for cancer.

Ward activities helped promote a healthy lifestyle for patients – for example walking groups and sports activities.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it and to ensure that outcomes are positive and consistent, and that they meet both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff continuously monitored patients’ health, their mental state and well-being. Some patients were on enhanced observations. We saw some evidence of personalised care including encouraging a patient to use the garden and encouraging food intake

Staff used recognised rating scales to assess and record the severity of patients’ conditions and care and treatment outcomes.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when they delivered person-centred care and treatment.

Staff assessed each patients’ capacity to consent to admission and treatment on admission. Capacity was monitored and recorded at multidisciplinary team meetings and in care plans.

If a patient was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, the arrangements for their detention and treatment were consistent with the requirements of the Act and accompanying code of practice. Staff supported patients to understand how the Mental Health Act applied to their situation and that patients understood their rights.

Staff engaged with patients’ families to understand each patients’ history and interests; this was reflected in patients’ care plans.