- Independent mental health service
Cygnet Hospital Derby
Assessment report published 18 March 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Cygnet Derby Hospital is a purpose-built facility run by Cygnet Health Care Limited. It registered with the CQC in 2010 and provides the following regulated activities:
- Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983
- Treatment of disease, disorder or injury
The service had a Registered Manager. We visited the following wards as part of the assessment:
- Alvaston Ward – Female Low Secure Personality Disorder – 16 beds
- Litchurch Ward – Male Low Secure Mental Health & Dual Diagnosis – 15 beds
- Wyvern Ward – Male High Support Inpatient Rehabilitation (Level 2) – 19 beds
At this assessment we assessed 2 assessment service groups; Forensic inpatient or secure wards where we assessed all quality statements and Long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults where we also assessed all quality statements.
We assessed Cygnet Derby Hospital from 8 to 12 September 2025.
We assessed all 33 Quality Statements across the five key questions: safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led. The service was last inspected in May 2022 and was rated Good. Following this assessment, the rating remains Good.
The service provided care that was safe and well-organised. The environment was clean, well maintained, and appropriate for its purpose. Environmental risks, including ligature points, were effectively identified, assessed, and mitigated. Staff completed comprehensive risk assessments for patients and reviewed them regularly.
Care and treatment were consistently delivered in line with national guidance and best practice, and staff went beyond this to achieve excellent outcomes for patients. People had access to a wide range of highly specialised support tailored to their individual needs. Staff were well trained and supported through supervision and appraisals, which enabled them to deliver high-quality, innovative care. The multidisciplinary team worked very well together and maintained strong, proactive partnerships with external agencies to ensure continuity of care and the best possible outcomes.
People using the service were treated with kindness, empathy, and respect. Staff actively promoted dignity, independence, and individual choice, ensuring people remained central to all decisions about their care. Patients consistently told us they felt empowered to understand their rights and stay in control of their wellbeing.
There was strong leadership in place. Leaders were visible, supportive, and fostered a positive culture of learning, collaboration, and continuous improvement across the service.
Mental Health Act & Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
During our inspection (8–12 September 2025), we evaluated the service’s compliance with both the Mental Health Act (MHA) and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of the MHA and its Code of Practice, applying it confidently when admitting and managing detained patients to ensure care remained lawful and patients’ rights were respected. Governance and oversight of MHA use were robust, with clear escalation pathways, regular reviews, and effective monitoring arrangements. Patients detained under the MHA were supported to engage in decisions about their treatment, with access to independent advocacy and second opinion appointed doctors where required, providing safeguards for those who lacked capacity or were subject to treatment under legal compulsion. There was no evidence of systemic overuse or misuse of restrictive powers, and leadership emphasised patient-centred decision-making when restrictions were necessary.
Staff consistently assessed patients’ capacity to make specific decisions using the two-stage test and documented these assessments thoroughly. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests after consulting the multidisciplinary team, families, and advocates. They clearly recorded the rationale, who was consulted, and what options were considered. Reasonable adjustments were made to support patients in understanding and participating in decision-making, including easy-read materials, interpreters, and adapted communication methods. Governance of MCA practices were strong, with regular audits of capacity assessments and best-interest decisions. Staff received ongoing training in MCA, human rights, and equality to ensure decisions upheld patients’ rights and dignity.
Overall, the service demonstrated very good compliance with both the MHA and MCA. Staff applied legal frameworks appropriately, maintained a balance between care, protection, and autonomy, and ensured patients were involved wherever possible. Governance systems supported compliance, and the service showed a clear commitment to respecting patient rights while delivering safe, personalised care.