Cygnet Victoria House

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

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 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.

We spoke to 3 patients and 4 carers during our inspection. Other patients we approached were either too unwell to engage or declined to speak to us. Feedback from patients was positive. Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Family members felt the staff were caring. One family member told us, “Staff show respect, they greet you warmly, give me updates, answer my questions. My son respects them and has a good relationship with them. He will listen to them.” Another told us, “I know [family member] is getting the care he needs; it’s been a journey and I feel staff really do give him time.”

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. 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.

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

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

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.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients. Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support.

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.

Patients and their families told us staff were available to speak to when needed. They reported this had a positive impact on their wellbeing.

Patients told us they had access to independent advocates where needed. They were able to attend the ward in person, or through other communication methods where needed.

Staff used a variety of communication methods with patients on the wards. Online translation services could be used to produce information in different languages.

Staff gave patients access to activities, such as pool, board games, movie nights, use of the gymnasium and arts and crafts. We saw activity timetables displayed on patient noticeboards on the wards. Patients told us that access to activities within the hospital and I the local environment was good. These included cooking sessions, accessing the local shopping centre and the gym.

The occupational therapy team devised therapeutic activities following discussions with patients and staff on the wards. Care records evidenced staff provided both group and individualised activities for patients.

Patients care plans included the patient's choices and preferences, allowing for activities to be arranged accordingly.

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 were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care planned for these accordingly.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. For example, we observed staff interactions with a person whose risk to themself had increased and discussions amongst the MDT in planned meetings regarding changes to observations and Section 17 leave as a result.

We observed staff using de-escalation techniques to good effect to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened.

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.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued and were positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. They told us they had chosen to work for the provider because of their reputation but also had chosen to stay there for a long time because of the support and culture.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service as well as a range of other wellbeing support schemes. Staff had access to counselling and staff told us managers had an open-door policy. Managers and staff gave us examples of times where they had supported or were being supported to stay well in their work.

The Staff Survey demonstrated that there were low levels of bullying, harassment and abuse towards staff with the highest percentages coming from patients, their families and members of the public. Of the forms of abuse the largest reported for was verbal abuse, followed by intimidation or threatening behaviour. 87% of people who had experienced abuse had reported it themselves, or a colleague had spoken up about it.

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