Cygnet Sedgley House and Cygnet Sedgley Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained.

Good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We maximise the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

We reviewed 6 patient care records. Staff completed a comprehensive mental health assessment of the patient soon after admission. Care plans were comprehensive, personalised and holistic. Staff updated them regularly or when changes were made due to incidents or discussion within multidisciplinary meetings. Care plans incorporated assessed risks and associated management plans. Staff assessed and monitored physical health well.

Rehabilitation and recovery was specifically care planned and plans were focused on developing skills and promoting independence.

Personalised positive behavioural support plans were in place for those patients who would benefit from this approach. Plans recognised strengths and challenges identified by the patient and ways staff could help them when they became distressed or upset.

Patients told us they were involved in planning their care and could receive a copy of their care plan if they wished.

We plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what is important and matters to them and in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. However, not all staff said they received sufficient supervision for their needs.

The provider’s policy required staff to receive monthly supervision. Records showed 87% of staff from the House and 96% of staff from the Lodge were up to date with their supervision requirements and 95% of staff had received their annual appraisal.

However, 7 staff said they had not had sufficient, formalised supervision. They said they had not received supervision monthly and if they did, it did not meet their needs. Some staff said there were times when they did not know certain procedures as they had not been shown or told.

One staff member said that they were not given the time to speak freely or discuss training needs or concerns as they never received any formalised supervision sessions, it was often impromptu and written up following informal conversations they may have had with their supervisor.

Other staff were more complimentary about the supervision they received and their supervisors.

A range of staff from different disciplines completed assessments and planned care and treatment well that met their psychological, medical, physical health and rehabilitation needs. They used a range of assessment tools.

Staff were experienced and qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the patient group. New starters received a corporate induction and relevant training. However, some staff felt they did not receive an in-depth local induction.

Patients had individual activity plans for hospital-based activities and therapies which included access to community resource and events. Staff monitored and reviewed meaningful activity and engagement and ensured patients met the NHS 25-hour weekly activity guidelines. Activities included vocational work and patients had access to education sessions. Psychologists and occupational therapists provided a range of sessions to meet patients rehabilitation needs such as men’s mental health awareness and substance misuse.

Patients had good access to appointments at the local GP surgery. Staff participated in clinical audits when required.

We work effectively across teams and services to support people, making sure they only need to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when they move between different services.

Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team and attended regular multidisciplinary team meetings and daily risk meetings to plan, monitor and make decisions on care and treatment plans. Patients had access to other healthcare specialists such as district nurses, GPs and dental services. We attended 1 morning risk meeting. There was a standard format which reviewed items that could impact on patient safety; for example, staffing, incidents, environmental concerns, safeguarding, specific patient risks including nursing observations and physical health concerns. We observed staff within these meetings effectively communicating with each other and sharing knowledge around all elements of current risk, patient care and treatment.

Patients told us they were supported by the staff team and attended multidisciplinary team meetings. Patients had access to other healthcare specialists such as district nurses, GPs and dental services.

Staff worked well with external partners and they attended multidisciplinary treatment reviews to enable continuity of care and support for discharge. Managers said that some patients discharge and authorisation for leave for certain sections under the Mental Health Act 1983 were delayed due by external partners or other factors, which was frustrating.

We support people to manage their health and wellbeing so they can maximise their independence, choice and control, live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Patients’ physical health needs were assessed and documented within care plans. These were routinely monitored and reviewed.

Staff told us they understood the importance of ensuring patients’ physical health needs were met. Staff had appropriate training to ensure that they were able to effectively assess and monitor physical health needs. A qualified physical health nurse was in place.

Occupational therapists arranged sporting activities such as football and box fit. Cooking groups focused on preparing healthy meals. The hospital had recently acquired an allotment which would encourage patients to work outdoors and grow vegetables to be prepared in their meals.

We routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it and to ensure that outcomes are positive and consistent, and that they meet both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff and managers used outcome measures to measure patient progress. They were reviewed monthly in multidisciplinary meetings and care, treatment and discharge planning amended accordingly, dependent on results.

Staff said they always ensured that patients understood what their rights were under the Mental Health Act and repeated these regularly.

Staff completed Mental Health Act audits to ensure correct authorisation for detention and capacity to consent for medication paperwork was in place.

Staff had a good working knowledge of the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act. At the time of the assessment, 100% of eligible staff had undertaken mandatory training on these legal frameworks.