Cygnet Lodge Brighouse

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 good. This key question remains good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

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.

Our observations when on site at the hospital included a short observational framework for inspection (SOFI) during lunchtime. We observed that staff interacted well with patients and were responsive to their needs, in a discreet and respectful manner.

Patients were supported, by staff, to manage their care and treatment including access to daily living activities, utilising kitchen and garden space and the information technology (IT) suite. There was a quiet space that could be used, if required.

Staff we spoke with had good knowledge of the patients they were supporting and patients told us that staff treated and knew them well.

We spoke with the relatives of 4 of the patients, 3 out of 4 told us that, from their observations, their loved ones were treated with respect and dignity, they had established good relationships with the staff, who seemed to know them well, and felt safe. A further relative declined to comment with regard to that. Confidential information about people was maintained.

It was noted by relatives that the link with the provider's social worker, worked well at keeping them updated about their loved one’s progress.

Staff we spoke with were positive about their roles and spoke with kindness and compassion about those they were supporting.

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.

The hospital could support patients who had more limited mobility and was accessible despite being over 3 floors. The service had a lift available for use by patients, if needed. Use of interpreters or communication aids were available also, if required.

Cygnet Lodge Brighouse was piloting an electronic SMART device that had a SIM card in and was General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) safe. It allowed staff and patients to communicate using every available language to mitigate any barriers. It also had a screen to provide discussion, in writing, for patients with hearing difficulties. This was an innovative piece of technology that patients had been using with positive feedback. This was used daily, but not as a substitute for using interpreter services where these were required, or chosen by, patients or families.

Information was available in different formats, to ensure accessibility and there was clear information on patients’ rights and how to make a complaint.

Care records we reviewed evidenced that there was a person-centred approach to care at Cygnet Lodge Brighouse. Staff we spoke with understood the individual needs of people, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. This was reflected in the care records.

There was access to a multi faith room at the hospital and patients could access places to carry out their religious activities in the community.

The hospital staff facilitated a sensory space for patients’ use and adapted bedroom spaces to accommodate those needs. Where noise was an issue, allocation to a bedroom away from the main ward areas could be arranged. Another bedroom was converted into a quiet lounge area to accommodate the needs of those requiring a quieter environment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Information we gathered, including that from relatives and the provider’s expert by experience, who visited the hospital, showed that patients had access to a range of different activities (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 prior commitments, but they were included as far as possible in planning for discharge.

The building had recently been decorated, and patients were involved in the choice of colours they wanted to have, to give the hospital a more homely atmosphere.

There was no gym on site, which was commented on by the provider’s expert by experience whilst we were visiting, however, patients could access the gym in the community, and this was actively encouraged by staff.

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

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 PMVA techniques.

Management team members attended restrictive practice meetings to discuss the use restrictive practice, including looking at best practice from other services, locally.

The hospital was working towards the safewards model of practice. Safewards is a model to help staff and patients communicate better and reduce conflict. The interventions encourage staff to highlight positive aspects of patients during handovers to promote appreciation, reduce conflict and improve ward culture. Training on Safewards and reducing restrictive practice was being piloted, with sessions scheduled for May, June, and July 2026.

All patients were registered with a local GP on admission to the hospital and there was a specialist doctor based on site. There was evidence of collaboration between the hospital and the GP, and patients had access to a dentist for oral health.

Patient’s physical health was monitored using recognised rating scales to assess and record severity and outcomes such as National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to identify any deterioration that may need intervention.

Care records we reviewed, included positive behaviour support (PBS) plans and information about patient’s needs.

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

Throughout the inspection we spoke with a wide range of staff from different disciplines. A common theme was that they valued, respected, supported and felt safe working at the hospital.

The most recent staff survey completed between 15th April and 10th June 2025, indicated that staff were generally satisfied with their breaks, working hours and conditions, pay and daily workload. Of those who completed the survey, 98 % reported they were aware of the freedom to speak up guardian. A further 84 % reported that they felt psychologically safe at work and 81% were positive about the culture. The number of staff who responded to the survey was 47 out of 56 which meant 83% had their say.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Staff shared their mealtimes with patients and had their meals provided by the hospital when on shift.

The provider recognised staff success within the service, for example, through compliments and recognition in meetings.

Staff stated that there were career development opportunities and recent sensory integration training had been funded by the provider.

There was autonomy with some staff being able to buy new things for the ward, out of the provider’s budget within a certain amount.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.