Cognacity

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 responsive as requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

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

Records reviewed demonstrated that care and treatment were planned around patients' individual needs, circumstances and treatment goals. Staff documented discussions with patients about their care and treatment and considered their preferences when agreeing treatment plans. Care plans were personalised and reflected patients' views and needs.

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

The service worked collaboratively with patients and, where appropriate, their families and carers to support continuity of care. Records showed staff liaised with relatives, with patient consent, to support treatment plans and medication management, including helping patients access prescribed medicines.

Staff considered patients' wider health and social needs when planning care and treatment. We saw examples where staff supported patients in relation to employment and education, including providing workplace assessments and supporting access to educational opportunities.

Staff also considered patients' cultural and spiritual needs and supported people to maintain links with their communities where appropriate.

At our inspection in October 2025, we identified significant concerns about the quality and management of records. Information was not always accurate, up to date, or maintained in a format that supported personalised care and treatment. At this assessment, we found the provider had made the improvements required by the warning notice. Records were contemporaneous, accessible, and supported the delivery of individualised care.

At the previous inspection, we found that clinical records had not been maintained on the provider's electronic record system for three patients. During this assessment, records were available for all patients whose care we reviewed. The provider had strengthened its governance and auditing processes to monitor record-keeping and provide assurance that staff maintained complete clinical records for all patients receiving treatment.

The provider had also improved its processes for reporting incidents to external agencies. Staff understood their responsibilities for notifying relevant bodies, and the service was now submitting statutory notifications to CQC for all notifiable incidents. Records showed the provider had notified CQC of five unexpected deaths and two incidents involving the police. This demonstrated improved oversight of incidents and increased compliance with regulatory requirements.

At our inspection in October 2025, we identified concerns with the service's complaints process. People were not always involved in decisions about their care and treatment, and the service did not consistently demonstrate how learning from complaints was shared or used to improve services. At this assessment, we found the provider had made improvements.

Since January 2026, the service had received five complaints. We reviewed the management of these complaints and found they had been investigated in line with the provider's complaints policy. Where concerns were upheld, the service took appropriate action. For example, one complaint relating to a report not meeting expectations resulted in a full investigation and a refund to the patient. In another case, the service apologised after identifying concerns about information-sharing processes. Where complaints were not upheld, records demonstrated that investigations had been completed and clear explanations had been provided to patients. For example, complaints relating to communication, prescription charges and diagnostic methods were reviewed and responded to appropriately. In one case where a patient was dissatisfied with an appointment, an alternative appointment was offered.

The provider had strengthened oversight of complaints. The registered manager recorded, monitored and reviewed complaints and their outcomes on a weekly basis. Staff received feedback on the outcome of complaint investigations and discussed complaints, themes and learning during monthly clinical governance meetings. This supported organisational learning and helped drive service improvement.

The service also sought feedback from people about their experiences of care and treatment. The provider had implemented several methods to encourage feedback, including patient questionnaires and a QR code available in the waiting area. Although response rates remained low, managers were actively monitoring feedback levels and exploring ways to improve engagement. This demonstrated a commitment to understanding people's experiences and using feedback to improve the service.

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

The provider had arrangements in place to respond when patients did not attend appointments. Following a previous incident, the service strengthened its non-attendance process to help ensure patient safety. Reception staff contacted patients who did not attend appointments and escalated concerns to clinicians when contact could not be established.

Staff assessed any potential risks associated with non-attendance and, where appropriate, contacted patients' GPs or emergency contacts. This helped ensure that patients who may be at risk were identified promptly and provided with appropriate support.

Staff planned discharge arrangements in conjunction with other professionals where needed to support continuity of care.

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

The provider completed equality impact assessments of policies and procedures to help ensure people with protected characteristics were not disadvantaged when accessing care and treatment.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the potential issues facing vulnerable groups such as LGBTQ+ and ethnic minorities. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

At our previous assessment in October 2025, we found limited assurance that care planning was consistently coordinated for patients with complex needs. Staff did not always demonstrate effective liaison with GPs and other healthcare professionals when planning and delivering care. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

Where appropriate, staff supported patients to consider longer-term decisions about their care, treatment and discharge from the service. Care plans reflected patients' individual needs, preferences and treatment goals.

Staff collaborated with a range of healthcare professionals, including GPs, psychiatric inpatient services, primary care and secondary care services, to support continuity of care. Records demonstrated communication with external services where required, helping to ensure patients received coordinated care and support. This provided greater assurance that people were supported to plan for future changes in their health and wellbeing.