Cygnet Sherwood House and Cygnet Hospital Sherwood

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 patients’ needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant patients’ needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

The hospital aimed to support patients in becoming more independent, consistent with its role as a Level 2 long-term rehabilitation service. We observed patients engaging in activities that promoted independence, including therapeutic job opportunities and accessing Section 17 leave to use local community resources.

Most of the patients we spoke with said that care and treatment had been arranged around their individual needs and preferences. Staff involved patients in care planning and offered patients a copy of their care plan. We saw evidence that staff involved patients and families in decisions about care and treatment.

Throughout the assessment there was a clear sense that staff knew their patients well. Staff we spoke to had a good understanding of their patients and were able to talk about their likes and dislikes.

The psychology department offered a weekly drop-in clinic where patients could ask questions, build therapeutic relationships, and increase engagement in ward sessions and activities. The service used visual discharge plans to support patients with the next steps in their recovery journey.

Staff delivered mindfulness and coping skills workshops to help patients access community activities during leave, such as shopping. Patients also attended sessions on emotional regulation and substance misuse.

The hospital promoted sexual safety and online awareness. The local police force delivered a session on sexual safety and online risks, and occupational therapy staff provided follow-up sessions to reinforce learning.

The service recently opened a social hub that was designed through coproduction with patients. Activities were chosen to meet the needs and preferences of the patient group, and patients selected the pictures and colours used in the hub. The space was bright, welcoming, and reflected patient involvement in its design. Throughout the hospital, we saw a variety of information for patients about care, activities, and themed information points, which supported engagement and access to relevant resources.

The service actively involved patients with lived experience in shaping care. A peer support worker visited the site weekly to provide direct support to patients. They attended community meetings, the ‘Patients Council’, and clinical governance meetings, where they presented formal reports to managers. They visited wards, spoke with patients and staff, and observed daily activities to understand the patient experience. The peer support worker shared feedback with senior managers, which informed service improvements.

However, we reviewed 8 care records and found no evidence of family or carer involvement. Documented patient views were generic and lacked a person-centred or recovery-focused approach. Some patients told us they felt “bored.” Although the unit offered a range of activities, some patients reported they were not offered activities that matched their interests, even when they had expressed preferences.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care, including Section 117 aftercare, community mental health services, and crisis services. They planned for discharge effectively, maintaining good liaison with care managers and coordinators to support continuity of care.

Patient’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that meets their assessed needs from services that are coordinated and responsive.

However, some patients experienced delayed discharge. The current longest stay was 6 years. Managers told us this was due to funding challenges and difficulties in finding appropriate placements.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies when required, and we saw examples where the service had notified CQC appropriately.

Staff ensured patients could access information about treatments, local services, their rights, and how to complain.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), although we did not see information displayed in different languages, staff explained how they could access translated materials for patients who required them. Notice boards were accessible and relevant to the current patient group. Posters for Independent Mental Health Act (IMHA) and Independent Mental Capacity Act (IMCA) advocates, general advocacy, and family advocacy were displayed in an appropriate format, ensuring patients knew how to access support. Reasonable adjustments met patients’ communication needs, and staff used interpreters and language lines when required. Posters were in accessible formats to meet the needs of patients on the ward. Patients told us they received information in a way they could understand.

Compliance with the AIS was evident throughout treatment, including communication, letters, displayed information, care and treatment plans, and rights. Patients currently on the ward had a good understanding of written information and were supported well when discussing care plans, medication, and rights.

Staff ensured patients could access information about treatments, local services, patients’ rights, and how to complain. A wide range of information was available for patients and carers at the hospital entrance.

Information governance systems protected patient confidentiality. All hospital systems were computer-based and password-protected.

The service made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service collected and acted on patient feedback through forums such as community meetings, the patients council, carers meetings, the triangle of care, and governance meetings. Patients confirmed they were encouraged and enabled to give feedback about their care in ways that worked for them, and this feedback was acted upon. However, when we reviewed a sample of meeting minutes, we found they lacked detail and provided limited evidence of patient voice. Attendance rates were low, which reduced the effectiveness of these forums. We also saw evidence that the ‘Patients Council’ meeting scheduled for May 2025 was cancelled due to “high levels of distress on the unit,” which further limited opportunities for patients to share their views.

The service informed families and carers about the hospital and made efforts to involve them. Staff invited families to events such as hospital open days, national awareness days, and garden parties. The manager contacted families of newly admitted patients by email to introduce themselves and provide information about the hospital. Medical staff reached out to families regularly to encourage involvement, including arranging meetings with the multidisciplinary team (MDT) to clarify care plans. Staff supported families with travel arrangements when needed. Despite these efforts, family engagement remained limited, with low attendance at events and only four responses to family feedback surveys.

Patients had easy access to complaint information and told us they knew how to make a complaint. They felt their concerns would be taken seriously and handled with compassion. Staff explained how they managed complaints, and we saw that complaints were recorded using their internal reporting systems with all relevant documentation, including acknowledgement and outcome letters. Complaints were managed in line with policy, using corporate templates and meeting required timescales. The hospital’s September 2024 complaints and compliments audit scored 65% and identified 4 recommendations. Since then, the hospital has received only 1 complaint. Compliments were also recorded and shared with staff and patients. The hospital regularly received compliments from patients, staff, external providers, and families, including a recent positive comment from a student nurse.

The service made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients confirmed they received prompt support when their needs changed. Staff ensured equitable access to care by meeting individual needs; for example, wheelchair users were allocated ground-floor bedrooms.

The hospital maintained adequate medical cover day and night. Doctors could attend the ward quickly in an emergency, and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance of the local acute hospital, ensuring timely access to additional care when required.

The service made reasonable adjustments for disabled patients, ensuring access to the premises and meeting specific communication needs. Bedrooms were available on the ground floor, corridors were wide enough for wheelchairs, and activity areas were accessible. However, the service did not have an accessible bath, although at the time of our assessment no patient required this.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care, including Section 117 aftercare, community mental health services, and crisis services. They planned for discharge effectively, maintaining good liaison with care managers and coordinators to support continuity of care.

However, some patients experienced delayed discharge. The current longest stay was 6 years. Managers told us this was due to funding challenges and difficulties in finding appropriate placements.

Staff and managers actively listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff and managers promoted a culture where patients using the service felt empowered to share their views. Patients had opportunities to contribute through community meetings and the patients council. However, minutes from these meetings did not always capture patients’ views in detail.

The provider completed equality impact assessments for policies and procedures to ensure they did not disadvantage vulnerable patients or those with protected characteristics.

Staff received training in equality, diversity, inclusion, and human rights, achieving 100% compliance. This demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting fairness and equity in care delivery and outcomes.

Patients were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care, treatment, and future. Overall, staff created personalised care plans that reflected patients’ needs, wishes, and feelings.

Staff involved all relevant healthcare professionals and agencies in planning care and treatment for patients with complex needs.

Staff planned for patients discharge collaboratively. Discharge plans were developed with input from home treatment teams, community mental health teams, housing services, social services, and GPs to ensure continuity of care and smooth transitions.

However, we found evidence that care plans did not always include discharge planning within five days of admission in line with the providers policy.