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.

Throughout our inspection, we observed staff interacting with patients in a kind, respectful and relaxed manner. In the meetings we attended, staff demonstrated a good understanding of patients. Patients were comfortable engaging with staff, demonstrating positive therapeutic relationships.

We spoke with 5 patients, all of whom told us they found staff kind, supportive and respectful. They described staff as “lovely”, “very nice” and very supportive, including during crises. One patient said about staff: “They don’t give up on people and always want you to get better”. Another said that staff praised even their small achievements. The 2 carers we spoke with also said they found staff kind, polite and respectful. However, one patient told us that agency staff could be rude.

Patients told us that staff supported them to understand their own risks better and felt involved in their care and treatment. Patients said staff understood and supported their individual needs. Care planning was personalised, with clear evidence of patient voice in the care records we reviewed. Carers’ feedback about staff meeting their relatives’ individual needs was mostly positive. One carer said staff had a very good understanding of their relative’s needs, however another thought staff could sometimes be too busy to meet the needs of their relative.

Staff respected the confidentiality of information about patients. Staff explained and documented consent, confidentiality and information sharing.

We sought feedback from partner agencies who regularly worked with the service. One stakeholder described staff as courteous, professional and caring, and said they treated patients with kindness and compassion. Another stakeholder said that staff encouraged people to participate in discussions and share feedback.

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.

Staff considered patients’ needs and preferences and documented those in the care plans. There was strong consideration of autism and learning disabilities. Staff adapted provision for individual needs, for example by using communication cards with some neurodivergent patients.

Staff we spoke with were committed to providing person-centred care, including choice of activities for different needs and interests, and identifying least restrictive practices. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of women-specific health issues, including screenings and sexual health.

Feedback from patients showed that staff met their individual needs, including cultural and spiritual needs. Two patients told us how staff supported them to attend a local church. Religious materials were available, and faith leaders visited the wards.

Patients were provided with a choice of food to meet their dietary needs, intolerances, or preferences. However, some patients were not happy with the quality or taste of the food on offer. Two patients said they found the menu repetitive. Some patients said they preferred to buy food from local shops or order takeaways. Shortly after our inspection visit, managers provided an update that the dietitian was working with patients on improving the menu. The new menu was expected to be in place within a few weeks.

There was information on display to make diverse groups of people feel welcome and included. For example, interpreter service details were clearly displayed, and a joint Pride celebration event was recently held by staff and patients.

One partner agency stakeholder said that staff took a holistic approach to patients’ individual needs, and another that staff tailored care in response to patients’ changing needs.

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

Most patients and carers we spoke with told us they were satisfied with their level of involvement in care and access to the care plan. They said they received enough information and updates about treatment and medicines.

Staff obtained and documented consent from patients and respected their decisions in this. The care and treatment records we reviewed demonstrated that when patients were detained under the Mental Health Act (MHA), staff read and explained their rights and repeated this regularly. An informal patient we spoke with confirmed they knew they could leave the hospital. All staff on both wards had completed training in MHA awareness.

Patients told us they knew about independent advocacy. Advocates visited the wards regularly, and posters with advocacy details were displayed throughout the hospital. Managers told us about implementing an opt out system for advocacy, with all detained patients registered for advocacy support on admission.

Staff were committed to promoting patient independence and least restrictive practice. The care plans we viewed were recovery-orientated, with clear evidence of patient voice. One patient told us about the skills they had learnt to manage their condition, and another how staff supported them to improve budgeting. Patients were positive about the occupational therapy (OT) and psychology provision which they described as skills-focused. OT staff described pride in supporting patients to regain confidence and practical skills.

An expert by experience worked with patients and staff to ensure that service development was informed by patient voice. Each ward had a nominated carer champion who supported carer engagement.

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 demonstrated a good understanding of risks specific to their patient group and of patients’ individual risks. The risks, and any changes to them, were discussed daily. Staff told us about providing additional support to their bank and agency colleagues to ensure awareness of patient-specific risks and ward routines.

Patients we spoke with said that staff understood and met their individual needs. We observed staff engaging with patients and responding to their requests promptly. One patient told us how the therapeutic relationships they had built with staff, including staff taking time to speak, had contributed to their ongoing recovery. Another patient told us that staff checked on them more often to offer support when they noticed they felt low.

Some staff on Upping Ward spoke about the recent incidents linked to a small number of patients whose needs exceeded those the service could meet safely. They acknowledged the challenges in supporting these patients, and recognised the importance of knowing the patients well, preventative strategies and effective therapeutic support.

Staff were committed to using restraint only as the last resort, with support from Prevention and Management of Violence and Aggression (PMVA) leads. Most patients who had been restrained said they understood the reason for this, and that staff had restrained them safely.

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

Staff we spoke with were proud and positive about working for their teams and the provider. They described a supportive culture, good teamwork and morale, and confidence in the local leadership. Staff reported feeling respected and valued. Staff received regular supervision and appraisal, the records of which demonstrated discussions of their health and wellbeing, development needs and equality, diversity and inclusion.

Staff acknowledged the recent challenges in caring for patients with high levels of emotional distress, and the emotional impact of this. Additionally, staff said this increased the administrative burden associated with incident documentation and resulted in staffing pressures. Staff however reported that managers had listened to their concerns and had taken steps to increase staffing levels, with one staff member saying: “They are not only listening but doing something about it”. Staff received support following incidents and could access additional resources. The provider’s employee assistance programme included Trauma Risk Management (TRiM), specialist support for challenging or traumatic events.

Staff had access to large comfortable staff rooms, which were well-utilised during our visit.

The provider recognised staff success, for example through staff award boards displayed throughout the hospital and the provider’s magazine which shared news across the organisation.