Cygnet Hospital Godden Green

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

We reviewed all 5 quality statements in the caring key question. This means we looked for evidence that the service involved patients and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question as 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.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We observed kind and respectful interactions between staff and people on the wards. Interactions were appropriate and supportive, and it was clear that staff and patients had developed positive relationships. During enhanced visual observations with people, staff interacted positively with them and encouraged the person they were supporting to engage in meaningful activities and conversations.

All people we spoke with said they were treated well, and most staff were caring and compassionate. All said they liked the staff and got on well with them and staff were respectful and responsive in providing them with help and advice and listening.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. Staff kept people’s documentation confidential and were mindful of ensuring that people were provided with a private space to make personal phone calls or talk to them about personal/private matters.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. This was also reflected in people’s care plans.

Staff said they felt able to raise concerns about any disrespectful, discriminatory, abusive behaviour or attitudes towards people or staff and that action would be taken to address this. Staff said they had received training in the importance of maintaining boundaries in therapeutic relationships with people and understood the importance of this.

Patients we spoke with told us that staff treated them as individuals and knew their likes, dislikes and interests. They were positive about staff and felt they were treated with dignity and respect. Patients felt supported to manage their own physical and mental health. Patients attended community meeting on the wards and were able to provide feedback and ideas for activities for the ward.

Staff and patient interactions we witnessed demonstrated that staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient. Multidisciplinary patient reviews we observed were person centred and holistic. However, not all of the care records we reviewed reflected this level of personalisation. Managers we spoke with acknowledged this and were able to describe work being undertaken in regard to this, including workshops with teams to review the quality or care plans and provide guidance and support staff.

Staff understood patients’ individual needs and preferences. They were able to describe the personal, social and religious needs of individual patients and explain how these would be identified and captured in care plans.

Patients came from diverse cultural backgrounds. Staff recognised this and provided facilities to meet patients cultural, religious and spiritual needs.

Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible, including keeping their bedrooms clean and tidy and managing their own personal affairs such as finances. They could personalise their bedrooms as they wished. People were supported to be involved in planning their activity programme which aimed to help them develop skills and techniques that would support them when they were ready to be discharged. Staff told us this was an integral part of their person centred-care approach.

Staff involved people in their care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided to them. Staff ensured that people had easy access to independent advocates.

We observed patients taking part in a range of activities including music and art. We saw a staff member providing beauty treatments and nail painting to a patient and the interactions between them appeared joyous. There was equipment and resources on the wards to help staff provide activities 7 days a week.

People were involved in their ward rounds and were able to contribute to these. We observed a ward round where the patient was able to ask questions and voice their preferences for their care and treatment and longer-term goals. Each ward had regular community meetings to record patient feedback.

Staff supported patients to maintain relationships that were important to them. Patients were able to access phones to stay in contact with loved ones. There was a family friendly visiting room. Where appropriate staff encouraged family members and loved ones to take patients out on community leave.

Patients we spoke with told us that they were able to access staff when they required them. They told us that staff were responsive to their needs and although some patients favoured certain staff, they were positive about all the staff who cared for them.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of the patient group and were able to describe individual risks and how they would respond to immediate need. Individual information and updates were also shared at shift-to-shift handovers to ensure staff understood potential needs risks and the most appropriate and effective responses to them.

There were appropriate systems and processes in place to support staff in responding to peoples’ immediate needs. There were nurse call alarms in bedrooms and staff carried personal alarms to summon help when required. Staff had access to emergency medical kits and a defibrillator if needed.

Staff we spoke with were proud of the care and treatment they provided to patients. They felt supported in their roles and felt valued by their colleagues. They described a supportive culture with a focus on staff wellbeing. They told us that despite the high acuity and needs of the patients on the wards, staff and patient relationships remained positive with a collective goal of making sure everyone felt supported and had a good day.

There were processes for staff to feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service. This included through supervision, team meetings and staff surveys. The provider recognised staff success within the service and wider organisation, for example, through staff awards.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. Staffing levels were sufficient to enable staff to take planned breaks and annual leave. Through the organisaton, staff had access to support services including occupational therapy and an employee assistance programme.