Cygnet Aspen Clinic

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 assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people's needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff delivered person-centred care and involved patients in decisions about their care and treatment. Patients had access to information about their care and treatment that could be provided in a format suitable for them.

Patients had access to an advocacy service and experts by experience, and there was a separate advocacy service for carers or family members. Patients were aware of how to raise concerns, give feedback or make a complaint.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We make sure people are at the centre of their care and treatment choices and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

The model of care was person centred, trauma informed and recovery focused. Patients at the service may present a risk to themselves through self-harm. Staff worked with patients to formulate an understanding of this behaviour, and how they could be supported to stop or reduce the harm from this. Patients and staff developed positive behavioural support (PBS) plans, that included what might trigger a patient to want to self-harm, and how staff should respond. Patients could access self-soothing items such as hot and cold packs, and the sensory room. Patients told us that staff generally followed their PBS plans, and attempted to deescalate situations.

There were several autistic people using the service. Accommodation had been made to meet their individual needs. For example, by reducing general stimulation within the service (such as brightness of lights and silent alarms) and by working with each patient about what worked for them (such as the sensory room and communication cards).

Staff spoke about patients in a positive and person centred way. Patients met with staff the week before their 4-weekly multidisciplinary team meeting to discuss their care plans. This gave them an opportunity to think about their health and care in a non-pressured environment, and to ensure that their views were heard.

We understand the diverse health and care needs of people and our local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity.

Staff supported and encouraged patients to maintain contact with their families and carers if they wished to do so. There was a visiting room on the ward. Most patients were not from the local area, but were supported to visit their families when possible. Carers had their own dedicated advocacy service, and the service encouraged their engagement.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community. Religious materials, such as the Bible or Koran, and prayer mats were available. Patients could be supported to attend for religious worship, for example by going to church or synagogue.

We provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group. Each patient was provided with a patient information pack, and there was information on display on noticeboards throughout the ward. This included photographs of staff, information about therapies and treatments, and how to access support or make a complaint. Information could be provided in accessible formats, and some patients used communication cards.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients. Managers told us that most patients were fluent in English, and spoke it as their first language. However, information could be sourced in other languages when required. Interpreters could also be provided when needed.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress. Patients were asked about the information they may want to be shared with others, and who they wanted this shared with. Patients and carers had access to their own separate advocacy services to provide them with support.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Patients’ main care records were computer-based, with supporting paper documents stored securely.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. This included notifying the Care Quality Commission when required, and promptly providing follow up information when requested.

We make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. The provider had a complaints policy that included how people could make a complaint, what the process would be, and when they should expect a response. There is a complaints form that patients can complete, or they can speak directly to the manager. If a complaint needed further action, a manager would investigate and then respond to the complainant. If appropriate, a manager from outside the service would investigate.

Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns. There was information on display about how to make a complaint. Patients we spoke with said they know how to make a complaint.

When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback. Patients told us that they did not always know what had happened following their complaints, but they did receive a response and were generally satisfied with the outcome.

Managers told us they didn’t receive many formal complaints, but when patients or staff raised concerns they tried to resolve them directly. The service had logged 7 complaints in the last 12 months. These were mainly from different people, and there were no specific themes. They have been responded to, and noted that the person was satisfied with the outcome. Patients receiving care funded by the NHS, such as those at Cygnet Aspen Clinic, can escalate their concerns to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman if they are not satisfied with the response from the provider. There had been no complaints referred to the Ombudsman.

Staff received feedback on the outcome of the investigation of complaints either directly through supervision, or general feedback was shared in staff meetings.

We make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met. The service could support and make adjustments for people with mobility problems. All patients had an individual bedroom with an ensuite shower/wet room. Most bedrooms were on the upper floor, but there were two bedrooms on the ground floor. There was a staff operated lift between the two floors. Managers told us that they took account of people’s needs, and how the service could meet them as part of the pre-admission assessment process.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could respond to the service quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital. The service had a consultant psychiatrist, who provided cross-cover with the Cygnet Healthcare service next door. Out of hours medical support was provided by the regional out of hours cover system.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with commissioners and care co-ordinators. Future plans and discharge were discussed as a routine part of each patient’s care throughout their admission. This included with patients and their families, as well as with the commissioners of their care, and the health teams in their local area or the area they would be moving to. In the last 12 months, there had been 1 patient whose discharge had been delayed when they were clinically ready for discharge. This was due to issues outside the control of the service, and the service worked with the patient and their home team whilst they were waiting to be discharged.

We actively seek out and listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We tailor the care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Patients were encouraged to give feedback about the service. This was supported by staff, and independent advocacy and experts by experience service. Patients had community meetings and a Patients’ Council where they could share their views.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. 99% of staff had completed equality and diversity training.

We support people to plan for important life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment. Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings. All patients had positive behavioural support (PBS) plans, which included involving patients in discussions about how they wanted staff to support and respond to them when they were distressed.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. Patients were involved in discussions about where they wanted to move onto, when they were ready to leave the service. This included supporting patients to visit potential future placements and the local area. When possible, patients were encouraged to visit several services so that they could make an informed decision.