Cygnet Hospital Beckton

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question 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.

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.

The service treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff were discreet, respectful, and responsive in caring for patients. The interactions we saw between staff and patients was respectful and kind. All patients we spoke to told us they were treated with kindness, dignity, and respect.

Staff gave patients help, emotional support and advice when they needed it. Patients told us they could speak to staff and that they felt listened to and supported.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved kindly. All patients told us they felt safe on the ward. We observed calm, supportive, and respectful interactions between staff and patients on the wards.

Staff felt they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory, or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients. Staff we spoke with told us they felt safe to raise concerns should they need to and were aware of the freedom to speak up guardian and knew how to access this if required.

Patients had access to spiritual, religious, and cultural support. Staff responded to individual requests for support as appropriate.

The service treated people as individuals and aimed to ensure people’s care, support, and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service could support and make adjustments for disabled people and those with communication needs or other specific needs. The hospital had a lift which meant patients with mobility difficulties could access the wards. The bathrooms and garden area were also accessible.

Staff made sure patients could access information on treatments, local services, their rights, and how to complain. The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group according to individual needs.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients on request. Managers made sure staff and patients could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

Patients had access to spiritual, religious and cultural support. Staff responded to individual requests for support.

The service promoted patients’ independence, so they knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients were able to make choices about their care, support and how they spent their time.

We observed ward rounds where patients were able to contribute and make suggestions which were listened and responded to about their care, treatment and well-being. Care plans were personalised and showed patient’s involvement.

Patients could make private phones calls and receive visits from friends and family members.

Patients told us they knew about independent advocacy. Posters with advocacy details were displayed throughout the hospital.

Patients were able to raise concerns and provide feedback on issues that affected them at weekly community team meetings

The service listened to and understood patients’ needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to patients’ needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff had received training in and used verbal de-escalation techniques. They were able to describe in detail the techniques they used to de-escalate situations. Staff discussed instances of potentially violent or aggressive behaviour in handover meetings, along with the de-escalation techniques they used. Patients assessed as being at risk of violent or aggressive behaviour had a specific care plan to address this area.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported, and valued. They felt the service promoted equality and diversity and provided opportunities for career progression. A member of staff reported that with manager’s support, they had recently completed their leadership apprenticeship. Staff also felt they could raise concerns without fear of retribution, and any concerns would be acknowledged and taken seriously by senior managers.

Staff spoke positively about morale on the wards and the significant change within the culture of the hospital with the change of leaders. Staff described leaders as having an ‘open door’ policy, being accessible, open, and transparent. Staff were encouraged to share their views.

Staff felt positive and proud about working for their team and described as a supportive environment where staff valued each other.

Staff could access the whistle-blowing policy on the intranet system. Staff were aware of the organisations speak up guardian and how to contact them.

Managers dealt with poor staff performance appropriately when needed. Performance issues were initially addressed during one-to-one supervision. Where improvement was needed, goals and objectives were introduced to staff as required.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an employee assistance programme provided by the organisation, where staff could access counselling, as well as legal and financial advice. Staff also accessed the providers occupational health services when required.