Cygnet Hospital Colchester

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

Staff regularly met with patients to understand their views on care and treatment. These discussions took place in one-to-one meetings with nurses and in ward rounds. Patients’ named nurses were clearly displayed for patients both inside and outside their rooms. Staff monitored patients’ conditions and discussed any changes at twice daily handover meetings.

Minutes from community meetings demonstrated that patients were actively supported to raise concerns and queries. Where issues required deeper exploration, records showed that private discussions were offered to ensure individuals felt comfortable and fully heard.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. This service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and our local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and friends, this included patients having the use of iPads and phones. Carers received a carer’s pack, had access to a specialist advocacy service for carers and were invited to join fortnightly carers meetings. If patients were out of area, staff would provide additional support to ensure they maintain contact with their loved ones.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. The service submitted notifications to the Care Quality Commission in accordance with the requirements of their registration. The service submitted safeguarding referrals to the local authority.

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

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patients’ progress.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The service involved them in decisions about their care and told them what’s changed as a result.

Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. Most patients said if they had any complaints, they would speak to staff in the first instance. We saw that information about how to make a complaint and how to raise concerns with the Care Quality Commission was available on noticeboards throughout the ward.

Staff facilitated community meetings and a monthly People’s Council to enable patients to discuss complaints and concerns. All managers, staff and patients were invited to attend the People’s Council, and everyone had an equal opportunity to raise concerns and suggest improvements for the hospital as well as provide positive feedback. These meetings were jointly led by a patient and a staff member. Staff fed back at the beginning of these meetings any updates and what had changed since the previous meeting. We saw ‘you said, we did’ displayed clearly on the ward.

Staff knew how to acknowledge complaints and tried to swiftly resolve them with patients. In the last 12 months, managers received 8 complaints. All were documented as being addressed. One was upheld, 2 were partially upheld and 5 were not upheld.

In the past 12 months the ward received 6 documented compliments. These were mainly from patients that had received care and were complimenting the staff and environment. One patient commented on the caring nature of the staff and the personalised care they received.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that everyone could access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, with a physical health nurse and doctor based at the hospital.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including liaison with partners to arrange accommodation. Care plans identified discharge planning was in place from admission and regularly updated.

Staff liaised with partners involved in post-discharge care, for example, community mental health services and housing services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service admitted patients from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds. The welcome pack for the ward included assessing the patients’ individual spiritual and religious needs and informed patients about the multi faith room within the hospital.

Staff shared that adjustments were made to accommodate patients with diverse needs, including the use of speech and language therapists. Information was available in alternative formats to ensure accessibility; we saw an easy read safeguarding guide available to patients.

Staff supported patients from diverse backgrounds and educated others by taking part in culture days on the ward.

At the time of inspection, 100% of staff had completed training in Equality and Diversity.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patients’ needs, wishes and feelings. We saw that patients and carers were included in the MDT meetings.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.