Cygnet Hospital Beckton

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 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.

The service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

Staff understood the individual needs of each patient. Staff adapted their approach to work with each patient’s individual preferences. Staff told us they worked to understand patients’ behaviours through regular debriefs and reflective practice sessions. The psychology team worked with the multidisciplinary team to formulate support plans to enable the wider team to support patients effectively.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their own care, treatment, or condition. Patients were able to discuss they care and treatment in ward rounds meetings.

Staff told us, they had supported a patient with complex needs whose incidents had been increasing. In a ward round, the multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussed with the patient their individual needs and reviewed the plans already in place to support them. The social work team were also involved in developing a coordinated approach. Staff provided daily one-to-one sessions, recognising the need for additional support to build a therapeutic relationship to support the patient. Staff reported the level of incidents had declined.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff made sure patients had access to opportunities for education and work. Support was provided with benefits, housing and accessing support from other services. The occupational therapy team offered support to patients around training courses. They also supported patients to develop their independent living skills.

Staff encouraged patients to develop and maintain relationships both within the service and the wider community. At the time of our inspection, most patients on both wards were placed outside their home area, which could present challenges in maintaining existing relationships and community connections. Staff supported patients to sustain contact with family, friends and other important people in their lives through regular communication, visits and access to Section 17 leave where appropriate. This helped patients maintain meaningful relationships and reduce the impact of being placed away from their local community.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service submitted notifications to external organisations as required.

Staff made sure patients could access information about treatments, local services, patients’ rights, and how to make a complaint. Information was displayed on wards noticeboards and included details about advocacy services, ward activities, and legal representatives.

We did not see information displayed in languages other than English. We raised this with staff who told us that managers made sure staff and patients could access information in easy-read formats, use the translator pen, and receive help from interpreters or signers when needed. In addition, managers made sure patients’ communication and accessibility needs were discussed and documented during the pre-admission process so that appropriate support could be provided.

The service made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. Patients and carers we spoke with understood how to make a complaint and told us they would feel comfortable doing so. The service clearly displayed information about how to raise a concern in patient areas. The patient welcome pack contained information about how to make a complaint.

Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them. Managers investigated complaints and identified themes. The hospital had oversight of complaints. During the 6 months leading to our inspection, the hospital received 33 complaints. All complaints were discussed at the monthly clinical governance meetings and any themes or trends identified shared with the wider team.

Staff protected patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. Staff knew how to acknowledge complaints and patients received feedback from managers after the investigation into their complaint.

Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service. Staff told us complaints were discussed in handovers, clinical governance and staff meetings, this information used to inform patient care.

The service used compliments to learn, celebrate success, and improve the quality of care.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service could support patients with mobility difficulties. The hospital had a lift which meant patients with mobility difficulties could access the wards. The bedrooms, bathrooms and garden area were also accessible.

The service had an admission policy and criteria for admission that staff followed. All referrals were discussed within the multidisciplinary team. The service took referrals from all parts of England and Wales, all patients on Svanna and Hooper Wards were out of area placements.

The multidisciplinary team reviewed length of stay for patients to ensure they did not stay longer than they needed to. The average length of stay for patients on Svanna Ward was under 2 months and 2 months for Hooper Ward. Where patients no longer required acute or PICU services, the team worked with commissioners to move patients back to their home area.

Managers and staff worked to make sure they did not discharge patients before they were ready. When patients went on leave there was always a bed available when they returned.

Staff did not move or discharge patients at night or very early in the morning. When patients were moved, the transfer of care to other units were managed at an appropriate time for the patient and based on clinical need or in the best interest of the patient.

Managers monitored the number delayed discharges. Delayed transfers were discussed at clinical governance meetings. At the time of inspection, 2 patients discharges were delayed. Staff actively worked with patient’s local teams to find an alternative placement more suited to their needs.

Staff carefully planned patients’ discharge and worked with care managers and coordinators to make sure this went well. The wards daily multidisciplinary meeting was also used to plan patient discharges. Patient’s families and care coordinators were invited to join in person or remotely.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

All staff on both wards had completed mandatory training in equity and diversity and Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism.

Staff introduced patients to the ward and to the service as part of their admission. A welcome pack was available that provided information about the service.

Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment and found ways to communicate with patients who had communication difficulties.

Staff involved patients in decisions about the service. Patients were able to attend a weekly community meeting and provide feedback on the service. Patients were able to raise concerns and provide feedback on issues that affected them and staff supported them to do this. The weekly community meeting included an update on actions, “you said, we did” feedback, safety concerns, and environmental issues. For example, patients raised concerns about the limited time available to order takeaway meals, which meant sometimes they could not place an order. In response to this feedback, the service extended the ordering time.

Patients were also supported by the expert by experience team within the service and could attend the monthly patient’s council meeting.

Staff made sure patients could access advocacy services. Advocacy and contact details were displayed throughout the wards.

Staff met patients’ dietary needs and assessed those needing specialist nutrition and hydration. The service made dietary adjustments for patients’ religious, cultural, and other needs.

The occupational therapy team supported patients who required sensory aids by co-producing individualised sensory grab bags. These grab bags helped patients manage anxiety and sensory needs, enabling them to attend important medical appointments and engage more effectively with healthcare services. It also contained the patient’s health passport. The grab bag had helped to increase the awareness of sensory interventions within the MDT

There was information displayed on both wards’ noticeboards, such as activities timetable, care model and transition, we did not see LGBTQ+ communities information displayed. We raised this with staff. Staff we spoke with were unsure of the hospitals transgender policy, managers told us, while it is an all-female facility, its overall admissions policy regarding transgender women is governed by wider UK healthcare laws, Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulations, and NHS guidance on single-sex wards.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care, treatment, and future. Staff created personalised care plans that reflected patients’ needs, wishes, and feelings. Staff involved all relevant healthcare professionals and agencies in planning care and treatment for patients with complex needs.

Staff planned for patients discharge collaboratively. Discharge plans were developed with input from community mental health teams, housing services, social services, local police and GPs as required, and family and carers where appliable to ensure continuity of care and smooth transitions. Staff recorded discharge planning at the point of patient admission