Cygnet Hospital Stevenage

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

Staff supported and involved patients in decisions about their care and treatment. Staff treated patients with kindness and compassion and knew the individual patient well. Patients' views were sought and listened to.

However, staff wellbeing at work had been impacted by low levels of staffing, which meant they did not always feel safe at work.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

During the assessment we observed staff engaging with patients. These interactions were positive, supportive and kind. Patients and carers told us that staff were friendly, supportive, caring and kind.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. We saw examples of patient involvement recorded in care plans and positive behaviour support plans.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services, including podiatry, dentists, GPs and dieticians.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. During inspection we observed different cultural music playing in different areas of the wards and in patients’ bedrooms. Patients had access to a multi-faith room within the hospital.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients and records were kept securely.

Staff treated people as individuals and made sure their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service made adjustments for patients with autism and/or sensory needs. Both Tiffany Ward and Chamberlain Ward had a relaxation/sensory room. Loop Ear Plugs were provided to support patients with noise sensitivity. Tailored activity timetables and diet plans were co-produced with the patient to meet their individual requirements. The service gave an example of adjustments made for patients with autism and/or sensory needs on Tiffany ward. These included trauma–informed relaxation sessions, and access to calming tools that focussed on the senses such as tactile, visual and auditory. Staff working in occupational therapy had undertaken sensory modulation training.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services and patients’ rights. The information provided was accessible, we saw a wide range of leaflets and information was made available on wards.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters, including British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters if required. Information was provided in pictorial and easy read formats.

Patients had a choice of food to meet their dietary requirements. We saw evidence in care plans that dietary needs had been taken into account. Patients had access to a Dietician. Patients gave feedback on the food at community meetings, and they told us the food was mostly very good.

Staff supported patients to access cultural groups or faith related organisations in the community and could arrange visits for patients with their faith custodian, either in person, online or by telephone. Patients and staff had access to the hospital’s onsite multi-faith room.

The service promoted people’s independence, so they knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Patients told us they knew their rights.

Patients had access to advocacy and knew how to request their support.

The service ensured patients were made aware of their rights; on the day of admission rights were discussed and paperwork was given to the patient; the staff then re-read their rights on day 7 and on day 14. This ensured patients knew their rights of appeal and any deadlines for this.

We reviewed 3 care records and saw individual patients had opportunities to give input into their care plans.

The Occupational Therapy team created a digital version of the activity timetable where patients could scan a QR code and follow the timetable on their smart phones. If preferred, patients could view the hard copy on the notice board in the ward area.

The service had monthly patient council meetings and held regular carer events such as drop ins, network meetings, and activities to demonstrate how the occupational therapy team re-introduced basic daily living skills. An example of this was a basic cooking concept, where people could participate in making pancakes/crepes.

Carers told us they were included in Multidisciplinary and Care Programme Approach (CPA) meetings and reported being supported with communication including language barriers.

Carers told us they felt able to raise concerns and provide feedback.

However, not all carers said they received regular updates.

Staff listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff took action to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues. They identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Staff were trained in reducing restrictive interventions.

Most patients said they felt staff were available when they needed support.

External stakeholders told us that staff made themselves accessible to patients if patients have concerns or needed information. They felt that staff communicated with clients well and provided a range of different communication formats when required.

The service did not always promote the wellbeing of staff. Staff reported that they were not always supported on their return to work after workplace incidents.

Managers told us and staff confirmed that staff workplace incidents including incidents of violence and aggression made to staff by patients had been an issue. Managers told us this was due to high acuity and patient risk rather than staff shortages.

Some staff we spoke with raised concerns about staffing levels. They felt they were not well supported to raise these concerns with senior management, and some staff told us they did not feel safe whilst at work.

However, the service’s staff sickness rates as of September 2025 were low ranging from 0.4% to 6.8% (Tiffany ward) for short term sickness and long-term sickness was at 0% across all wards.

The service had a good retention rate. Staff stayed working at the hospital for long periods. The staff turnover rate for the period April to September 2025 was 0% for all wards except Pattison ward with a turnover rate of 3.92% (equivalent to 1 person).

Staff appraisals included conversations about professional development and how it could be supported. At the time of assessment 100% of staff on all wards, except Tiffany (83%) had received an annual appraisal of their work. Staff could discuss their wellbeing at supervisions.