Cygnet Sherwood House and Cygnet Hospital Sherwood

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 is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

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.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Our review of community meeting minutes showed that some patients had raised concerns about dignity during observations, particularly when staff completed checks while they were using the toilet, and said staff needed to communicate more clearly in these situations.

However, during our onsite visit we observed staff interacting with patients in ways that demonstrated kindness and respect. Staff were discreet, compassionate and responsive, offering patients help, emotional support and advice whenever they needed it. Staff maintained professional boundaries and consistently upheld patients’ dignity in their day‑to‑day interactions.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. They directed patients to other services when appropriate and supported them to access these when required. Staff demonstrated an understanding of each patient’s individual needs, including their personal, cultural, social and religious preferences.

Most patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately and respectfully. We reviewed 40 compliments from patients, families, carers and visiting professionals; all praised the care provided and highlighted staff dedication and commitment to delivering compassionate, high-quality care. One family member described the staff as “consistently helpful, supportive and kind”.

We observed a ward round where patients and carers spoke positively about the service and praised the care they received.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated patients as individuals and made sure patient’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of patient’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff respected and met patients’ dietary needs, offering food choices that reflected religious, cultural and clinical requirements.

Staff understood and met patients’ personal, cultural, social and religious needs. They supported patients to access spiritual care, including using the hospital’s multi-faith room and attending local church services. Staff also provided personalised support, for example by sourcing a Bible in a patient’s first language to meet their individual needs.

However, our review of community meeting minutes identified concerns from some patients that their dietary needs and preferences, including allergies and intolerances, were not always taken seriously. One patient reported being unable to eat certain meals as the food provided made them feel unwell.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted patients’ independence, so patients knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We observed patients accessing Section 17 leave and engaging in activities that supported their treatment and promoted independence and most patients confirmed they could take their leave.

The service provided a varied programme of activities tailored to patients’ interests and recovery goals. Patients and carers valued opportunities such as outdoor activities, gym and social hub access, film nights, games, cooking sessions, therapy dog visits, music sessions, walking groups and football sessions, and said this positively supported wellbeing.

We observed ward rounds and a discharge meeting where staff actively involved patients in discussions and sought their views, opinions and experiences. Care plans were holistic, personalised and showed patients’ involvement in setting their own goals.

However, community meeting minutes showed some patients reported limited access to activities outside the local area and highlighted that the football group had stopped due to funding constraints.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. Staff did not always respond to patient’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Patients reported delays in staff responding to their needs, which affected their welfare. For example, one patient said they were unable to have a drink for up to 8 hours due to a lack of cups. Patients acknowledged staffing pressures but felt support was sometimes delayed.

Some patients said staff did not always understand their individual needs, and others reported that night staff were less attentive. Patients also raised concerns about disruptions during the night caused by other patients.

Our review of patients’ council minutes showed that some patients felt staff needed to improve communication. Patients from both Bramble Ward and Treetop Ward said staff spoke to each other in their own language, which made them feel uncomfortable or paranoid. They asked staff completing observations on Treetops Ward to engage more, for example by speaking to or acknowledging them, to help reduce anxiety.

However, most staff prioritised patients’ needs, wishes and comfort and anticipated their needs to prevent avoidable distress. We observed staff respond promptly to patients’ immediate needs during our visit. Most patients said they could access snacks and drinks whenever they wanted.

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 said they felt well supported in their roles and described a positive, collaborative team culture. Many told us they were proud to work at the service and felt very supported by colleagues and managers. Staff said they could raise concerns with management and felt confident these would be listened to and addressed. One staff member commented that the service was “fantastic,” and highlighted that staff were passionate, cared about patients and went above and beyond.

Staff spoke positively about teamwork across professional groups. They described medical and nursing staff working effectively together and said the responsible clinician considered their views in decision-making. Staff described the multidisciplinary team as helpful, respectful and collaborative, which contributed to a supportive environment where they felt valued and able to provide compassionate care.

The service recognised and celebrated staff achievements through initiatives such as employee of the month awards and nominations to the provider’s ‘Characters of Care’ scheme, promoting a culture of appreciation.

Staff accessed wellbeing support through occupational health services and an employee assistance programme. Staff said they knew how to access these services when needed.

Staff appraisals included meaningful discussions about career development and how staff could be supported to progress. Staff reported that these conversations helped them feel valued and confident about future opportunities within the service.