Cygnet Raglan House

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

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

Good: Staff managed beds well. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education, and family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients, including those with protected characteristics. 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.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area.

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

Staff and patients told us treatment had been arranged around individual needs and preferences. Patient records we reviewed demonstrated this.

Staff told us they received a good level of information prior to admission and that the assessments completed during the patient’s admission helped to support the patient to transition into the service smoothly.

The manager showed us how they prepared for a new expected patient, who was due to be admitted by refurbishing her bedroom, with new amenities and installing a new wet room to meet their needs.

We were invited to look at the bedroom of one of the patients who decorated her bedroom in a person-centred way. The patient told us that it was good for her wellbeing to design her bedroom how she wanted.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Staff ensured that patients had access to education and work opportunities. This included via the Recovery College, with recognised qualifications.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. We were told that they were invited to attend MDT meetings, and were kept updated of important information about their loved ones. Staff supported, informed and involved people using the service and their families or carers. A social worker within the hospital supported carers and sought to facilitate smooth transitions to other placements, when the patients were ready to be discharged into other placements in the community.

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 made notifications to external bodies as needed. They submitted statutory notifications to the Care Quality Commission and contacted the Local Authority regarding safeguarding issues raised.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Patient records were kept in locked cabinets and were accessible to staff as and when they needed them.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain. We saw evidence of information on the notice boards in the visitors’ room and in the communal areas.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress.

Patient information leaflets were written in an accessible format, and available in different languages when needed and in easy-read format for people with a learning disability.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients.

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

The service did not receive any formal complaints between August 2025 and January 2026. No complaints had been referred to the Ombudsman in the last 12 months.

Patients and their families knew how to make complaints or raise concerns. When patients raised complaints, they were investigated and patients were provided with feedback.

The provider had a complaints policy which provided detailed information on how to raise a complaint, and what to expect during the complaints process.

There were no themes and trends identified from investigating complaints, and staff told us that they knew how to handle complaints appropriately and efficiently.

Staff protected patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment.

Staff received feedback on the outcome of the investigation of complaints and acted on the findings and this was shared in staff meetings and MDT meetings.

Some patients told us the activities were repetitive, and they wanted more variety.

Staff enabled patients to give feedback on the service they received via staff surveys or community meetings. There was also a suggestion box on the ward where patients could post their feedback.

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

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met and made reasonable adjustments by providing them with walking aids, shower chairs, wheelchairs and evacuchairs.

There was also parking bays for disabled people, a wheelchair ramp on entrance point, wide doors and a low reception window for wheelchair users. There was also an elevator to the other floors which was wide enough to fit a wheelchair and 3 people.

Discharge was never delayed for other than clinical reasons. Staff told us that their priority was always the wellbeing of the patient and wanted to ensure that discharges were as safe as possible. There was evidence of discharge planning, including discussions around placement visits before discharge.

The average length of stay for all service users was 14 months 3 days.

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

Staff promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. The provider had a policy on Equality Diversity and Dignity, which promoted equal opportunities for all.

The provider undertook equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures, to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people, with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. This ensured that issues related to race and cultures in respect of the needs of individuals were managed well.

Staff were trained in Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Human Rights.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported by planning 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 and treatment and their future.

We saw that staff created personalised care plans to account for each patient’s needs, wishes and feelings.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies are involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. Local Authorities, Integrated Care Board, and Commissioners were involved in care and treatment of service users.

We had feedback from commissioners, and they told us there were no concerns with the service currently. They told us that when they attend ward rounds and Care Programme Approach meetings the feedback has been accurate and detailed.