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.

The care and treatment records we reviewed demonstrated that care planning was personalised and patients had a voice in their care. Staff we spoke with told us about their strong commitment to supporting patients with complex presentations through personalised, culturally-sensitive care. Patients told us that staff supported them to understand and manage their own risks better. Two patients shared examples of how this approach had helped them to reduce behaviours that previously led to harm or incidents.

There were activities on offer to suit different interests, available one-to-one and in groups. Patients were positive about the choice of activities. In addition to ward-based activities, there were organised walks and sports sessions in the community. Faith leaders visited the wards to meet with patients.

Staff empowered patients to make their own decisions about their care and treatment. Patients provided feedback at their ward rounds and staff discussed it with them.

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 ensured that patients could access work, training and education opportunities while at hospital. For example, a patient we spoke with told us about completing an access course during their admission, and was preparing to start a degree course following discharge. They were very positive about the support they had received from staff.

The service had developed dedicated carer provision. Each ward had a nominated carer champion, and there was a well-established friends and family newsletter. The newsletter shared information on available support resources and news about the service. Regular carer forums were held face-to-face and online. Staff also told us about good links with external partners, such as local carer support groups and education services.

Staff supported and encouraged patients to maintain contact with their families and friends, in line with their wishes. Some patients told us about going on home leave. Patients who did not have leave received visits at the hospital and could keep in touch using their own phones.

Staff involved other relevant services as appropriate, including the local acute hospital, GPs, community teams and NHS commissioners. When patients were admitted out of area, their carers and other professionals involved in their care could join the ward rounds virtually.

Stakeholders we spoke with said the service was good at providing care and forward planning.

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

Staff communicated with patients in line with their individual communication needs and preferences documented in the care plan. For example, staff tailored communication for neurodivergent patients.

Staff ensured that patients could access essential information, such as treatments, their rights, key contacts, independent advocacy, interpreter service and how to complain. Community meeting outcomes were displayed on ‘you said, we did’ boards. Actions taken in response to patient feedback included environmental improvements and maintenance requests. Tailored information was available for patients and carers.

Carers were mostly positive about communication with and from the service and the information they received. However, one carer said they were not updated regularly and staff did not call them back when requested. The results of the most recent carer survey indicated that some respondents wanted more regular updates.

Staff regularly updated commissioners and other professionals involved in patients’ care. The service submitted appropriate notifications to the relevant external bodies. A partner agency stakeholder described staff as prompt in responding to queries.

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.

Staff ensured that patients had opportunities to be involved in shaping the service. Patients could raise their queries or concerns at weekly community meetings. We attended 2 community meetings which were chaired by patients. They were conducted collaboratively and well-attended by patients and staff. Patients we spoke with confirmed they attended community meetings regularly and received feedback. ‘You said, we did’ boards were updated following community meetings.

There were monthly people’s council meetings attended by patient representatives and staff. Patients told us about delivering training on personality disorders to staff, and were part of staff recruitment panels. Patients were involved in choosing furniture and colours for the wards and the family room. Patient artwork was on display throughout the hospital.

The provider’s expert by experience visited the hospital regularly. They were committed to strengthening co-production, trauma informed care and patient empowerment. They felt their role was valued by the service, which helped to improve two-way feedback between staff and patients.

The service conducted regular patient and carer surveys. The most recent surveys were completed from March to June 2026. The themes in responses generally echoed the feedback we heard from patients, staff and carers. For example, some respondents wanted better food and more regular updates.

Patients told us they knew how to complain if needed, apart from one who said they did not but would ask for a complaints form. A carer we spoke with said they could give feedback to the service through a survey, and would call the ward in the first instance if they needed to complain.

Information on how to complain was available throughout the hospital. People could complain in several ways, including through email, QR code or in writing. Staff handled complaints appropriately and managers were trained in complaint investigation. Senior managers oversaw complaints and feedback and monitored themes and trends. In the 6 months leading up to our inspection, the hospital received 33 complaints and 50 compliments. Most complaints related to quality of care, lost or damaged property and staff attitude. Lessons learnt were shared in clinical governance and business meetings. Feedback from complaints was shared in staff meetings or one-to-one if related to an individual. We heard about changes made in response to complaints, such as improving one-to-one sessions, reviewing cultural and spiritual support information, and taking steps to improve the food menu.

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

Each ward had inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure it could meet patients’ needs safely. Local clinical teams reviewed incoming referrals and made decisions about the most appropriate pathway. We saw evidence that the service had declined some inappropriate referrals.

The hospital was accessible for people with mobility needs. The building was equipped with lifts and evacuation chairs. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) were completed for patients where required. PEEPs were detailed, individualised and reflected patient-specific needs.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate care pre- and post-discharge and planned for this jointly with them, carers and relevant professionals.

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.

Staff we spoke with thought the service was inclusive of diverse groups of people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. All staff on both wards had completed mandatory training in equity and diversity and the Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism. There was information displayed on the wards to make people welcome and included, for example carers and LGBTQ+ communities.

Staff told us about making personalised adjustments for people with protected characteristics. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of women-specific health issues and the related health inequalities. The hospital’s physical health lead planned further education for staff and patients around women’s health by introducing monthly sessions on each ward.

The service offered comprehensive carer support. A carer we spoke with confirmed they had been invited to carers’ groups.

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

Staff involved patients and where applicable, their carers, in making decisions about their care. Care planning reflected patients’ and carers’ views. Discussions about treatment goals started at pre-admission stage.

Staff ensured that all relevant teams and professionals were involved in planning the care and treatment of patients with complex needs, including when patients were admitted from out of area. These included local authorities, GPs, community teams and NHS commissioners. Care coordinators were invited to ward rounds.

There was a small number of patients on Upping Ward whose needs had evolved since referral and exceeded those the service could meet safely. Staff were working to identify more appropriate placements for these patients. Shortly after our site visit, we heard that one of these patients had been successfully transferred to a more suitable placement.

Due to the level of complexity often involved, lengths of stay at hospital varied. Sometimes discharges were delayed for patients who were clinically ready due to circumstances outside of the service’s control, such as supported accommodation or social care availability. Managers monitored discharge forecasts for each patient. A patient we spoke with on New Dawn Ward told us about their discharge plans. However, one carer of a patient on Upping Ward said they were not aware of the discharge plan. One partner agency stakeholder thought that discharge planning could be further strengthened through clearer goal setting and implementing positive risk-taking management planning.