Cygnet Hospital Harrogate

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 inspection we rated this key question outstanding. At this inspection the rating has changed to good.

Staff demonstrated strong knowledge of patients’ individual needs and consistently provided compassionate, person-centred care, which was reflected in positive feedback from patients, relatives and stakeholders. Observations during the inspection showed positive, respectful interactions between staff and patients, with survey results indicating that most patients felt cared for, supported, safe and involved in decisions about their care. The service promoted equality and inclusion through cultural, spiritual and communication support, including access to interpreters, a multifaith room and personalised dietary arrangements. Patients were supported to access a wide range of activities, community services and healthcare appointments, helping to promote recovery and independence. Staff also reported high levels of satisfaction and support, with survey results demonstrating a positive culture focused on patient care, wellbeing and professional development.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff we spoke with had good knowledge of the patients they were supporting and understood their individual needs, including personal, cultural, religious and social needs. This was further reinforced in feedback from stakeholders. Staff we spoke with were positive about their roles and spoke with kindness and compassion about those they were supporting.

Whilst on site, we observed patients using a short observational framework for inspection (SOFI) tool which demonstrated good interactions between staff and patients. Some were seen ‘fist pumping’ staff to greet them when they had entered the room.

The last patient satisfaction survey which took place between January 1st and June 29th 2026, indicated that of 34 patients who completed the survey 76% said staff were caring and supportive. There were additional comments that ‘all staff treat me with respect and dignity’ and ‘the staff have been so kind and supportive, they have made a real difference to my stay here’. On the question of feeling safe in the environment 74% of the 34 patients who responded agreed that they did.

The patient survey further showed that 74% of patients felt involved as an equal partner in decision making.

The most recent staff survey for 2026 (between 15th April and up to the time of our visit) showed that of those who completed it, 90% believed that the care of service users was Cygnet’s top priority. Staff we spoke with stated that they ‘go above and beyond’ to best support service users. A patient commented that ‘staff go above and beyond to help you to grow and recover’.

Stakeholders commented that although the service was busy, staff always had time for them.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

A relative expressed their ‘gratitude and appreciation for the team and stated that she ‘had hope for the first time in years’. They further commented that Sanctuary ward was ‘very patient centred’ and that their relative felt ‘safe and like she could engage’.

The hospital had multicultural leads in place and a multifaith room. Patients could utilise spiritual support out in the community by using s17 leave, or escorted leave with the support of staff. This was a question asked on admission to the hospital and care planned.

We observed patients attending their ward rounds and being empowered as partners in their care and being provided with information they needed on treatments to make informed choices.

The service also supported patients with housing, benefits, and referral to other support services such as substance misuse services.

We viewed 35 excellent compliments from patients and relatives both current and recently discharged, on topics from quality of care, staff attitudes, housekeeping and the environment.

In the most recent patient survey for 2026, 73% of 34 patients who completed it, agreed that staff understood their cultural and spiritual needs, adding additional comments that staff had addressed them ‘by their chosen gender’ and although ‘not being religious they had ‘felt included’. Black history month had been recently celebrated in the hospital.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters or signers, either in person or over the phone or by using Microsoft teams. Information leaflets could be printed in a range of languages, including patient’s rights. To meet specific dietary and cultural requirements, the kitchen staff kept a record of those who, for example, preferred halal meals, and they also kept information regarding intolerances, such as those suffering with coeliac disease.

Staff gave an example of an elderly patient with cognitive difficulties, and other medical needs, who was supported by the OT team. They had arranged a physiotherapy assessment and obtained a walking frame, an appropriate mattress and arranged reviews of the ulcers on their skin, which supported their recovery.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Information we gathered, including that from relatives who visited the hospital, showed that patients had access to a range of different activities over the course of a week (to help develop skills in different areas) and were able to take part in community meetings.

Relatives were invited to ward rounds, but some were unable to attend, due to their relatives being long distances from their home area. They were given the option to attend meetings virtually and were included as far as possible in planning for discharge.

Care plans we reviewed included hospital passports that held medical and health data about patients’ needs, health, any appointments, consent and decision-making information.

Staff supported patients who wanted to attend appointments in the community such as medical appointments, dentists and opticians. They supported patients to make the calls themselves or did this on their behalf , if needed, and supported them to attend appointments, or to rearrange them.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions. Staff had completed training in the use of restraint using Prevention and Management of Violence and Aggression (PMVA) techniques and the compliance figure was 95.5%.

Members of the management team attended restrictive practice meetings to discuss the use of this, including looking at best practice from other services, locally.

Staff used activity PRN as a means of distraction, to prevent escalation of violence and aggression. Care records we reviewed included positive behaviour support (PBS) plans, where relevant, which included coping strategies.

It was evident, from our attendance at meetings that staff identified and escalated risks appropriately and any safeguarding issues were discussed in situation report (sitrep) meetings.

The hospital embraced the Safewards model of practice. Safewards is a model to help staff and patients communicate better and reduce conflict. The interventions encouraged staff to highlight positive aspects of patients during handovers to promote appreciation, reduce conflict and improve ward culture.

Staff told us that the needs of service users were met by keeping them informed regarding their medications and doses, as well as bringing the tablets to them when that worked best for them.

The building could accommodate patients who needed a wheelchair. A working lift was in place and doorways and corridors were wide enough for a wheelchair to move through.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about an promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

A common theme in our discussions with staff was that they felt supported, respected, valued and safe, working at Cygnet Hospital Harrogate.

The most recent staff survey was completed in 2026 and indicated that 78% of those who completed it (60 people) were satisfied with their working hours and conditions. On the question of receiving appropriate training to perform their role, 87% agreed that this was the case. The topic of managers taking an interest in health and wellbeing scored 93% and 94% felt able to access their line manager, if requiring support.

Meals were provided to staff on site who were able to communicate their preferred choices for these. There were facilities to store and cook their own food if that was desired.

The survey results further showed that 95% of staff enjoyed working for Cygnet.

There had been no long-term sickness recorded in the previous year prior to our visit to the hospital.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported – ward managers had access to the ward manager development programme, which was a topic of discussion in supervision or appraisals.

Staff had access to the psychologist if they required support and their provider employment assistance programme.

The hospital also had an employee of the month scheme where both patients and staff could vote.