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 is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant patient’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not discharged except for their benefit. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. The service met the needs of all patients, – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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 evidence showed a good standard. The service placed patients at the centre of their care and treatment decisions and worked in partnership with them to respond to any changes in their needs.

Staff delivered person-centred care that reflected patients’ individual needs and preferences. We reviewed 7 care records which showed that staff involved most patients in developing their care plans and risk assessments, routinely shared copies, and actively sought feedback to inform care delivery.

Staff engaged carers throughout the patient journey, from admission to discharge, ensuring they were included in discussions and decision-making. This approach supported shared decision-making and ensured care and treatment remained centred on each person and their individual needs.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of patients as individuals, including their likes, dislikes and routines. Patients valued regular one-to-one sessions with their named nurse and used weekly “Peoples Council” and community meetings to share feedback and stay informed.

Staff developed comprehensive care plans that reflected patients’ physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics. They supported patients to understand their conditions and treatment options, including risks and benefits, and made reasonable adjustments to ensure care remained accessible and appropriate.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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 delivered coordinated, joined-up care that met patients’ needs. They worked collaboratively to provide timely, flexible and responsive interventions.

Staff planned discharge effectively and ensured patients accessed appropriate post‑discharge support, including Section 117 aftercare, community mental health teams and crisis services. They maintained strong liaison with community team care coordinators and managers, which supported continuity of care and smooth transitions between services.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with families and carers, involving them in ward rounds and discharge planning where appropriate. Carers said they could easily contact and visit their relatives, which supported relationships, informed decision-making and contributed to improvements in patients’ health and wellbeing.

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

Staff ensured patients could access clear and comprehensive information about their treatment, local services, their rights and how to complain. They complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and provided information in a range of formats, including different languages, to meet individual needs.

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.

Staff made reasonable adjustments to meet patients’ communication needs and used interpreters when required. Patients told us they understood the information provided, and staff supported them to discuss care plans, medication and their rights. The patient information leaflet clearly explained what to expect during admission and included guidance for families.

Staff demonstrated consistent compliance with the AIS across all aspects of care, including communication, written correspondence, care planning and rights information. A wide range of resources was also available for patients and carers at the entrance to each ward area.

Information governance systems protected patient confidentiality, with secure, password-protected electronic systems in place.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff ensured that patients and those close to them knew how to give feedback about their care, including how to raise concerns or issues. Staff clearly explained the complaints process and how they would manage any concerns. The service recorded all complaints on internal reporting systems and maintained complete documentation, including outcome letters. Staff managed complaints in line with policy. Between April 2025 and March 2026, the service received 15 formal complaints, of which one was partially upheld.

Staff facilitated weekly community meetings on each ward, where patients could share feedback and raise any concerns. Ward managers had regular “drop in” clinics for patients to raise concerns in a timely manner.

Staff reached out to families regularly to encourage involvement, including arranging meetings with the multidisciplinary team (MDT) to clarify care plans. We observed 3 ward rounds where families were actively involved. Families and carers praised staff for their kindness and professionalism, with 1 carer describing the service as “10 out of 10” and another saying that staff go “above and beyond”. Patients could easily access information about how to make a complaint and told us they knew how to do so. The service regularly received compliments from patients, staff, external providers and families, reflecting positive experiences of care.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met, for example, wheelchair users were placed in bedrooms at ground level or had access to lifts.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Our review of patient ward rounds showed that staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care, for example, S117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services.

The service managed access and flow effectively, with no delayed discharges recorded between March 2025 and March 2026. Staff maintained lengths of stay within expected timeframes (PICU 31 days; acute 52 days). They reviewed patient flow daily through ‘sitrep’ meetings and identified any potential delays promptly. Staff worked proactively with commissioners to resolve issues quickly and used established pathways within the service to prevent delays.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff ensured that care was tailored to individual needs and preferences, including those with protected characteristics and those at risk of poorer experiences.

Staff and managers promoted a culture where patients using the service felt empowered to share their views. Patients had opportunities to contribute through various forums, including community meetings, and our review of meeting minutes showed staff supported patients to share their views.

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. This demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting fairness and equity in care delivery and outcomes.

The evidence showed a good standard. Patients were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could 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, treatment, and future. 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, local police and GPs to ensure continuity of care and smooth transitions.