Cygnet Hospital Derby

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

Responsive - 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.

Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not moved between wards except for their benefit. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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.

Staff consistently placed patients at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment, ensuring plans reflected their individual needs, wishes, and priorities. Care plans fully reflected patients’ physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Patients actively contributed to shaping care plans and reviews, and staff took time to ensure patients understood their condition, treatment options, and associated risks so they could make informed choices.

Staff supported patients to pursue personal goals within the constraints of a secure environment. For example, one patient engaged in literacy and educational sessions on the ward, which improved confidence and independence. Another patient participated in a music workshop, contributing to a service user band, which helped build social skills and self-esteem. Staff also supported patients in therapeutic activities like Kung Fu and equine-assisted therapy within the secure setting, enabling development of coping strategies and physical fitness while remaining safe.

To promote person centred care, staff developed posters highlighting patients preferred name and pronouns, how they liked their nursing observations to be carried out, and times they wanted to be woken up.

Staff demonstrated a consistently person-centred approach, ensuring patients were treated as individuals. They encouraged patients to explore interests, build confidence, and maintain family and community connections. Staff actively supported patients to make decisions wherever possible and provided information in accessible formats, including easy-read materials and advocacy support. Continuous auditing of patient involvement ensured care remained meaningful, personalised, and consistently of the highest standard.

Patients reported experiencing care that was flexible and coordinated, so their needs were met without unnecessary disruption. Staff worked in partnership with other services, education providers, and community groups to ensure support continued beyond the hospital.

When patients wanted to pursue education or work, staff arranged access to courses such as GCSEs, A-levels, and vocational training. One patient received support to gain cycling proficiency to travel independently on leave. Patients described staff as flexible and responsive in supporting family contact. For example, one patient said: “My [relative] comes to see me, staff are so flexible, and they know how important that visit is to me.”

Staff carefully managed transitions between wards, or from hospital to the community. They coordinated with community teams to ensure patients received consistent support and avoided setbacks, helping patients experience continuity rather than gaps in their recovery journey.

The service maintained strong systems to ensure patients received accurate, appropriate, and up-to-date information. Staff submitted required notifications to external bodies and followed clear information governance processes to protect the confidentiality of patient records.

Staff complied with the Accessible Information Standard, adapting information to meet individual needs—for example, providing easy-read leaflets for patients with a learning disability and arranging interpreters or signers when required. Patients reported that staff supported them to access information about their care, treatment, and rights. One patient said: “Information regarding my care and treatment is always available to me and I can easily request it.” Another explained: “I get information and feedback from all MDT and CPA meetings.”

Community meetings were held regularly to share updates, raise concerns, and agree on actions. These meetings were often chaired by patients, and minutes were displayed on the ward so information remained accessible even for those who could not attend.

Staff kept carers, families, and commissioners updated about patient progress where appropriate, helping maintain trust and transparency across all groups involved in patients’ care.

Patients reported that they knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint, and that staff supported them in a safe and respectful way. One patient said: “I have raised concerns several times in the past, the outcomes have been quite positive, and staff supported me throughout.”

Staff ensured patients were protected from discrimination or negative treatment when they voiced concerns. Patients confirmed that staff provided feedback after concerns were raised and explained any resulting changes where appropriate.

Community meetings and ward representatives offered patients regular opportunities to share their views, raise issues, and suggest improvements. Patients felt confident that managers and the wider team heard their feedback and took it seriously.

Staff sought feedback from patients after they left the service. These were shared within the MDT and supported the service to use the feedback to improve positive experiences for patients receiving care and treatment.

The ward managers and lead social worker completed regular feedback audit to identify ‘you said we did’ actions. These supported staff with taking actions on patients’ feedback.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the complaints process and were confident in managing concerns. Outcomes from complaints investigations were shared with the wider staff team, and lessons learned were applied to improve practice.

There was adequate medical cover day and night. Staff reported that a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency, including seclusion incidents requiring attendance within an hour. The hospital was within reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Staff ensured patients had access to appropriate post-discharge care, including Section 117 aftercare, community mental health teams, and crisis services. Staff worked closely with care coordinators and managers to support patients when planning for discharge. One patient on Alvaston ward said: “Staff have supported me to find a supported living placement; I am so grateful to them for all they have done.”

Discharges were generally timely and not delayed for non-clinical reasons. Over the past 12 months, there were two delayed discharges, linked to challenges sourcing suitable supported living placements or funding.

Staff and leaders promoted a culture in which patients felt encouraged to share their views and experiences. Structured forums such as ward community meetings, the people’s council, and ward representative meetings provided patients with regular opportunities to raise issues, contribute ideas, and influence service delivery.

Equality data across protected characteristics, including age, sex, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and disability—was routinely monitored. Staff used this information to identify potential inequalities in access, experience, or outcomes, adjusting care planning and service delivery as needed. For example, monitoring ensured spiritual and cultural needs were respected, and communication needs were addressed effectively.

Staff were trained in Patient in Care Race Equality Framework (PCREF). The framework was introduced to support providers to antiracist organisations by co-producing and implementing actions to reduce racial inequalities within their service. This led to staff celebrating different beliefs and cultures throughout the year.

Policies and procedures were reviewed through equality impact assessments to ensure they did not disadvantage patients with protected characteristics or those at greater risk of poorer outcomes. All staff completed training in equality, diversity, inclusion, and human rights, supporting the delivery of respectful, non-discriminatory, and personalised care.

When monitoring highlighted patients identifying with a gender different from the one assigned at birth, staff received additional training to provide appropriate, respectful support. This reinforced the service’s commitment to using equality data to drive improvements in patient experiences and outcomes.

Staff supported patients to plan for important life changes, giving them enough time to make informed decisions about their future. They worked directly with patients to discuss care and treatment options, encouraging them to consider sensitive issues, such as DNACPRs, when appropriate.

The MDT contributed actively to care planning. Occupational therapists advised on functional needs, and doctors arranged onward referrals. Staff coordinated with families, care managers, and commissioners to plan discharge into the community, including supported living or other placements, ensuring transitions were safe, coordinated, and sustainable.