Cygnet Hospital Harrogate

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 inspection we rated this key question good.

At this inspection the service rating has remained as good.

The service demonstrated a strong commitment to person-centred care, communication, accessibility and discharge planning. Patients and relatives reported feeling listened to and involved in care, while effective governance processes ensured that learning from complaints and incidents informed continuous service improvement. The service also demonstrated a commitment to equality, reasonable adjustments and supporting positive outcomes beyond discharge.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Feedback from the staff and the management team, external partners and relatives, conveyed a theme of person-centred care. Every effort was made by staff to ensure patients were at the centre of their care and that their voices were heard. Regular meetings by the multidisciplinary team ensured that discussions took place as to how to respond to any changes.

A relative commented that their loved one had been listened to when wanting to access green space to meditate in and do some stretching to improve their mental and physical health. This had been facilitated by the activity coordinator.

Another gave feedback that their loved one could access food outside the usual mealtimes and sometimes had food taken up to them, if they were not well enough to attend the dining room.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Patients were supported to maintain contact with their families and carers. There was a visitor’s room to accommodate face-to-face visits and a telephone patients could use on the wards if they did not have access to a mobile phone. The garden space could be utilised for visitors to the site if the weather supported this.

There was provision to use information technology for educational purposes, although 2 patients had commented that they would have liked internet access to be more accessible on the ward. There were no restrictions on the use of this entered on the blanket restrictions register.

Community meetings took place on site and enabled all patients and staff to attend and express any concerns and requests. We looked at minutes of the meetings and it was evident that discussions had taken place regarding regarding the provision of an activity box during the night. This was facilitated for the patients. Another request was for more gym time - the hospital was waiting on training for 2 staff to facilitate this as the gym instructor is transferring to a new role. Patients could still use the gym in the community where applicable.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff ensured that carers and families were regularly updated about the patient’s progress.

Regular audits were undertaken to ensure there were no gaps in record keeping, Mental Health Act documentation or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) paperwork. There was an information governance system in place to maintain confidentiality of patient records.

Information regarding medicines was noted on prescription charts and medicines records. Care records kept up to date information and medicines information was provided and discussed on ward rounds. Patients were given a copy of their care plan, if they wanted this.

There were posters and leaflets available in the hospital which gave information on advocacy services. Welcome packs were provided to patients and carers on admission. There was access to a welcome pack which the speech and language team had developed for those patients who had learning disabilities and autistic people.

There was also the use of a ‘this is me, my care passport’ which could be used to identify patients’ needs, which had received positive feedback from stakeholders.

The OT’s also used picture cards to allow patients to articulate how they were feeling, if they struggled to verbalise this. The service complied with the accessible information standard (a set of NHS guidelines to ensure that individuals with sensory loss, impairments or disabilities could receive accessible information and support).

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients of Cygnet Hospital Harrogate knew how to complain or raise concerns and when they did so, feedback was communicated. This was evident from the complaints we reviewed, and concerns were logged in community meeting minutes.

The total number of complaints received by the service in the last 12 months was 23. Of these 12 were not upheld, 10 were partially upheld and 1 was upheld which was in relation to noise nuisance and contractors on site. An agreement was made that they would not attend the hospital prior to 7am to reduce impact on nearby residents.

Where applicable, concerns were raised at local clinical governance meetings and lessons learned cascaded to the team. It was evident from complaint paperwork that where feedback involved specific staff, that they were spoken with and concerns raised during supervision sessions.

Learning from incidents included ensuring that a check was added for IMHA referrals to be reviewed daily, within the morning meeting (board round), to ensure automatic referrals were made for detained patients. Also, that staff would receive a refresher for expectations around conduct, confidentiality and communication with families.

We viewed paperwork for sensory intervention and activity PRN checklists where patients could note down their warning signs and triggers and what they found helpful.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

A relative we spoke with stated that their loved one’s care plan did have her ‘likes and things that will help her to progress and prepare for discharge’.

The average length of stay for patients between January and June 2026 was 33 days for Haven Ward and 32 days for Sanctuary Ward.

There was evidence that the needs of people with mobility issues could be met and reasonable adjustments were made for those who needed them, to enable them to fully integrate into the environment. There was a working lift on site, and the doors were wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs.

The OT team completed autism meeting experience and environmental tools for patients requiring this, which considered sights, sounds and smells, as well as body awareness. They also completed sensory intervention checklists, when needed. These covered warning signs, triggers and noted what helpful distraction techniques were used.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

There was evidence of active discharge planning in the 7 care records we reviewed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff had access to training in equality, diversity and human rights and compliance for this was 100%. Staff were trained in PCREF (Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework), a set of aims to reduce racial inequalities in their services.

Compliance with the mandatory training requirement on learning disability and autism was 98% amongst all staff.

The OT department had ensured that the MDT room on Haven was a suitable space for patients with a learning disability. Stakeholders we spoke with commented that the hospital had got better at providing reasonable adjustments and that the autism outreach team were contacted early in the admission process, where required.

Patients were given the opportunity to give their views, for example, in community meetings and at their one-to-one meetings with their named nurse.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings and these also included a discharge plan.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers/co-ordinators. and this was corroborated by stakeholders. Discharge was not delayed for reasons other than clinical ones.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care – for example, section 117 aftercare, community mental health services and future support from providers. The service worked with a flow practitioner who was the liaison between the hospital and the home treatment team.

One patient commented that they had worried about their housing situation after discharge, but this was being addressed by the social work team.

Stakeholders provided an example of a patient who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, who had taken a copy of their checklist from Cygnet Hospital Harrogate to share with their home team for future use after discharge.