Cygnet Hospital Beckton

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

This means we looked for evidence that patients’ care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This means patients’ outcomes were good, and patient feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always maximise the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 4 care records and found that 3 patients received a physical and mental health assessment on admission. Not all patients had a venous thromboembolism (VTE) assessment. A diabetic patient did not have food and fluid monitoring charts, although it was documented in their care record that these were to be monitored.

For one patient, an interpreter was required and this had not been arranged in line with the provider’s policy, despite this need being identified and documented in the care record. This meant the patient had not been able to participate in discussions about their care and treatment. We raised this with the staff. There was no clear information about translation services on the ward noticeboards.

A patient we spoke with told us they were meant to have one-to-one sessions with staff daily, but received those 3-4 times weekly.

Patients, carers and others involved in their care attended weekly ward rounds, where they were able to discuss care plans and contribute to them. Carers and others usually joined the ward rounds online via a video link. This was because most patients were admitted to the hospital from other areas across England and Wales. Four of 8 carers we spoke with felt they were only updated in the ward rounds but not otherwise if they could not attend these.

Staff developed care plans that met the patients’ needs identified during assessment. Most care plans were personalised and holistic, with input from the multidisciplinary team and specialists when needed. A patient we spoke with told us they had just signed their care plan and were due to receive a copy. Staff reviewed and updated care plans when necessary. The service had appointed a Physical Health Nurse whose role included supporting staff with care planning.

Most carers we spoke with said the staff understood their relatives’ individual needs, for example helping them to “manage things like personal hygiene and finances”. Others felt that certain needs could be responded to better at times.

Staff we spoke to were able to describe the process of assessing individuals’ needs and had a good understanding of these. For example, staff were trialling the use of a 6-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) instead of a 12-lead one, so that ECGs could be done more quickly on admission.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Staff understood, assessed and recorded patient consent to care and treatment.

The provider had a policy on consent to treatment. Staff received and kept up to date with mandatory training on Mental Health Act Awareness, Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Staff reviewed the section expiry dates for patients detained under the Mental Health Act (MHA) in daily meetings.

Staff documented patients’ consent to involve other people in their care, or whether they wished to decline this.

Staff we spoke with could give examples of assessing capacity on a decision-specific basis, for example around friendships and relationships. They documented patients’ capacity to consent to treatment and information sharing, however we found this had not yet been assessed and documented for one patient whose record we reviewed at the time of our inspection.

Staff provided explanations to patients of their rights under the MHA and of their treatments. However, in one care record we found that a patient did not understand the rights under the Mental Health Act read to them on 1 December 2024 and this had not been revisited.