Cygnet Hospital Woking

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This key question has remained rated as good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect. Staff treated patients with kindness and compassion. Staff met patients’ immediate needs. Patients were supported by staff who felt valued by their leaders and their colleagues. Staff involved people in their care and ensured patients had access to activities to promote and support their independence, health and wellbeing.

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.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected patients’ privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. During the assessment we observed interactions between staff and patients as polite, warm and positive.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

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 adjusted for disabled patients to meet their needs. For example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs.

Staff ensured patients could obtain information on treatments, local services and patients’ rights. The information provided was accessible, for example easy-read information was made available on wards.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers when needed.

The service offered a variety of good quality food and patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements for religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. A central kitchen within the hospital provided meals for patients. A menu was sent out at the beginning of the week and patients could choose the meals they wanted from this. In addition, staff assisted patients to do online shopping and access the in-house shop for additional food/ snacks they may want. Most patients spoke highly of the food and choice available.

Patients said they had a choice of vegetarian and halal foods. One carer told us their relative was happy with the food. However, 3 patients were not always happy with the food that was served on the ward and said the food was often cold.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support.

Patients told us the ward had a multifaith room where patients from all religions could go there to pray. An Iman visited the ward weekly as well as a chaplain. Patients who had section 17 leave were escorted to go out of the hospital to church. Staff could arrange spiritual based activities for patients as required.

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.

Staff supported patients to have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Patients reported being involved in their care and 10 patients had copies of their care plans. Staff supported patients to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them. Due to the specialist nature of the service, patients were accepted from all over the country. The hospital had visiting rooms off the ward, which could be booked for visits. Carers reported regular contact from their relatives, but they gave mixed feedback on the frequency of contact from staff.

Patients had access to activities and the local community to promote and support their independence, health and wellbeing. There was also a range of activities on the wards. One record we reviewed described how a patient was supported to maintain paid employment.

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

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or choking risks and care planned for these accordingly. We saw examples of falls risk assessments and dietary needs within patient records.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Staff were trained in reducing restrictive interventions. For example, staff used the least restrictive option to deescalate a situation by ensuring a staff member who knew the patient well approached the when the patients were distressed to calm the situation down.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of staff

All staff we spoke to said they felt respected and valued within their team and were proud about working for Cygnet as an organisation.

The service’s staff sickness and absence were at 3.4% were similar to the average for the provider which was 3.5%.

The provider recognised staff success within the service. For example, the provider had flower Fridays where staff received flowers when patients gave positive feedback about a staff member through staff awards.

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

We found evidence that the provider had supported 2 staff who were studying to become associate nurses, had supported 1 healthcare assistant to complete access to healthcare and 1 staff member had progressed from a healthcare assistant to become a nurse.

At the time of assessment 100% of staff had received an annual appraisal of their work. Staff told us they could take breaks.