- Independent mental health service
Cygnet Hospital Beckton
Assessment report published 14 October 2026
Contents
Ratings - Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 2 to 4 June 2026.
Cygnet Hospital Beckton is a 58-bed specialist hospital for women of working age. It is based in the London Borough of Newham and is run by Cygnet Health Care Limited, an independent provider group. The hospital admits patients funded by NHS England and Integrated Care Boards.
The hospital provides acute wards and psychiatric intensive care units (PICU) and personality disorder services.
This report is specific to acute and PICU wards.
Svanna Ward is a 12-bed PICU service. Hooper Ward is a 13-bed acute service. At the time of our inspection, Svanna Ward had 6 patients, and Hooper Ward had 9 patients.
We carried out an unannounced site visit as part of our inspection on 2-4 June 2026 and visited both wards. We previously inspected the service in December 2024 and rated it requires improvement. At that time, we identified breaches of regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and governance.
This current inspection was comprehensive and covered all key questions and quality statements.
Following this inspection, the overall rating has improved to good. The service was no longer in breach of regulations.
We found several areas of good practice. We found significant progress had been made in the areas for improvement identified at the last inspection. These included medicines management, physical health monitoring, staff training and supervision, patient access to independent advocacy and governance processes. The hospital had recently moved to a risk formulation model. Staff spoke positively about the use of the risk formulation model, reporting that it improved their understanding of patients’ presentation and how to support them.
Staff felt respected, supported, valued and described leaders as having an ‘open door’ policy. The Acute and PICU wards were well resourced with multidisciplinary team (MDT) staff. The multidisciplinary team demonstrated an inclusive, person-centred approach. Patient feedback about staff was positive. We observed calm, supportive, and respectful interactions between staff and patients, and heard about patient involvement and co-production.
We also found some areas where best practice could be improved, most of which the managers were already aware of, and subsequent actions taken following our visit.
Current out of hours arrangements meant that the on-call doctor, who would form part of the independent reviewing team for patients nursed in seclusion, may also be the established ward doctor. The hospital manager subsequently told us that updated procedures that addressed out of hours had been introduced.
At the time of our inspection insufficient staff had completed mandatory training in administering buccal midazolam. The hospital took steps to ensure that over the hospital an appropriately trained staff member was available on each shift. The provider since advised us, additional training has been provided to ensure a suitably qualified member of staff is present on each ward.
We raised concerns regarding the move on plan for a patient whose needs exceeded those the service was able to safely and appropriately meet. Actions had been taken to escalate and identify a suitable placement. We were notified shortly after the inspection that this patient had transferred to a suitable placement.
Patient cohorts with complex needs and multiple co-morbidities were associated with significant increases in incidents on the wards. We recommended that the service keep its referral criteria under review, to ensure a consistently safe, therapeutic environment for all patients.
Staffing records for Hooper ward showed that, over a six-day period in May 2026 (26 to 31 May), staffing fell below safe levels. Actions were taken to mitigate the associated risks.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Mental Health Act
At the time of our inspection, the hospital provided care to both informal patients and those detained under the Mental Health Act.
Staff received and kept up to date with the Mental Health Act and the Mental Health Act mandatory training, and most staff could describe the Code of Practice and the guiding principles.
Staff had easy access to administrative support and legal advice on implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. Staff reviewed section due dates for patients detained under the Mental Health Act in daily huddle meetings and carried out any action required.
The service had relevant policies and procedures that reflected current guidance. Staff had easy access to local Mental Health Act policies and procedures and to the Code of Practice.
Staff explained to patients their rights under the Mental Health Act in a way that they could understand, repeated it as required and recorded that they had done so
Staff made sure patients could take Section 17 leave (permission for patients to leave hospital) when granted by the Responsible Clinician.
Staff requested an opinion from a Second Opinion Appointed Doctor (SOAD) when necessary.
Mental Capacity Act
Staff received and kept up to date with Mental Capacity Act mandatory training and had a good understanding of the five statutory principles.
The service had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards, which staff could describe and knew how to access.
Staff knew where to get accurate advice on the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards.
People's experience of this service
During this inspection, we spoke with 3 patients across both wards and 1 carer. We attended 2 community meetings, 1 safety huddle meeting, and with consent from patients, 2 ward rounds. Overall feedback from patients and carer was positive. Due to the distance of the hospital from where the patient lived, 1 carer told us they could not visit their relative as often as they would like.
All patients told us they felt safe at the service. Patients said that staff were kind, and respectful. Comments we received included ‘best hospital l have been in’, ‘staff are helpful, they do the best they can’, ‘they really listen, l worked against them before, staff persevered, now l feel better’. Two patients told us that at times they felt there were not enough staff
Patients knew how to complain and provide feedback to the service. One carer reported not being aware of the process, but able to contact staff or a manager when needed. The service conducted regular patient and carer surveys. The most recent surveys were completed in 2026 and showed results consistent with the feedback we heard; patients were happy with their care and treatment and with involvement in their care.