Cygnet Paddocks

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.

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

The design, layout, and furnishings of the service’s premises supported patient’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as recreational and social activities, developing hobbies and interests and maintaining family relationships. 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 was focused om making sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Staff in partnership with patients decided how to respond to any relevant changes in patients’ needs.

Care and treatment was person centred and considered patients’ equality and diversity needs, psychological, physical and social needs. Patient’s and where appropriate their relatives were involved, and their feedback and views were encouraged and responded to. Information was provided in accessible formats. Patients were supported to plan for important life changes.

Patients and relatives told us care and treatment was delivered in the way they preferred and met their individual needs.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients wherever possible, and worked with the patient, their families and therapist’s specialists to support planning and decision making. This included patients whose rehabilitation required long term care based on their brain injury or neurological condition. Multi-disciplinary meetings were used to explore best interests, and specialist therapist specialists provided clinical assessments for ongoing therapy needs.

Staff described and interacted with patients in a person-centred approach to care and treatment. They took patient’s cultural, psychological, physical and social needs into consideration when planning and developing care and treatment plans. Staff were responsive when additional areas of support were identified, and this was incorporated into patient’s care when possible. For example, where patient’s had specific cultural needs, this was reflected within care planning and through the provider’s policies, processes and training.

The evidence showed a good standard and understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people. Care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Patients and relatives told us they had access to the community services they required. Feedback was sought from patients during community meetings regarding diversity needs and action was taken accordingly. An online carers forum meeting took place in July 2025. The forum offered a space for family members and carers to share their experiences, hear service updates, and contribute to discussions on improving support for carers. Further meetings were to be planned based on feedback from participants.

Leaders understand the diverse health and care needs of patients. Staff had a good knowledge of each patients individual needs and age examples of how they ensured choice was offered and support was offered in a flexible way.

Staff involved patients, their family, and other carers in their care and support plans, so that they were engaged, consulted, and valued. Family members and carers were consulted through providing feedback and the specialists therapists on site supported family members and carers through offering education, advice and guidance on individual patient’s care and treatment.

Patients had access to accessible equipment, aids, and transport to enable community access, for example, wheelchairs and standing frame. Patients had their own mobile phones or tablets to stay connected with family members or carers.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen places of worship in the community or visiting faith leaders could use the onsite facilities, so patients were enabled to maintain their social, religious, ethnic, and cultural identities.

Recent quality monitoring visits undertaken by partner agencies reported patients were offered flexible support based on their needs.

Staff carefully planned patients’ discharge and worked with care managers and coordinators to make sure this went well. We observed an MDT meeting during which staff had planned a patient’s imminent discharge.

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

The service leadership team made the relevant notifications to the Care Quality Commission and other external bodies when incidents occurred and had policies and procedures in place to support staff.

Staff ensured that commissioners were regularly updated with information and commissioners visited the service to monitor patient’s progress.

Staff supported patients to use communication methods accessible to them.

Staff described the ways they tailored information to meet patient’s individual needs.

Signage and written information was displayed to support patients regarding ward routines, safety issues and orientation to time and place. Information was displayed in a pictorial format to inform patients about the staff team, activities, the advocate service, independent mental health advocate (IMHA), therapies and facilities as some examples.

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.

In the last 12 months the service had received 1 formal and two informal complaints and they responded promptly to the specific concerns raised. Staff we spoke to were aware of how to handle complaints appropriately, and there was a clear policy in place for the investigation and response to complaints.

The service received fifty-four compliments up to the end of October 2025. Compliments included family members and carers, commissioners, visiting professionals, advocate, and staff. Feedback from families and carers complimented the carers forum and how positive this had been. Families and carers complimented the quality of care, treatment and progress patients were making, supported by the staff and therapists collaborating with patients. Commissioners complimented the MDT and responsiveness in discharge planning and building resources, especially the independent flats.

Patients told us that they were aware of how to raise a complaint, and the complaint process included a pictorial version. When minor issues were shared, the service worked to address them. The service kept track of what actions they had taken to address any issues raised by both patients and staff, through the ‘You Said, We Did’ process and this showed the action taken in response to patients’ requests.

The service requested feedback from patients and collected the compliments they had received, informally, through thank you cards, from visiting professionals and stakeholders. All feedback was shared with the team for both learning, reflection, and staff development.

Relatives told us communication was good, and they received weekly updates about their family member. They told us they would feel comfortable to raise concerns with management.

Staff and managers told us patient feedback was encouraged, valued and used to improve the quality of the service.

Staff listened to and involved patients when providing care and treatment.

Community meetings took place so patients told us they could express concerns, share ideas or give general feedback. Changes were made in response such as menu requests or requests for activities. Staff directed patients to discuss matters requiring risk assessment during one-to-one meetings with staff or MDT meetings.

Outcomes agreed from patients during community meeting were documented in community meeting minutes. Examples of activities that had taken place from community meetings were a meal at a Chinese restaurant, going to the cinema and bowling. Patients had requested wall mounted clocks and radios on each ward, and this had been actioned. Patient requests that were in progress were for patients to attend a local rugby league match once the season resumes. Arrangements for patients to go fishing at a fishing lake and sit in on staff interview panels were still in progress.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service was good at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

A relative told us staff encouraged their family member to get involved in the activities. This included activities outside of the hospital.

The registered manager told us they ensured they were really listening to the patient’s needs. Looking from a patient point of view, considering all aspects of safety and wellbeing.

Patient's had access to care, support and treatment when they needed it.

The service was accessible to patients with disabilities. Written information could also be translated if a patient’s first language was not English. Activities and equipment provided were based on the needs, interests and preferences of the patients.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with accessibility and mobility issues were met and worked with patients, family members and stakeholders pre and during admission to understand what adjustments were required to ensure they could access the service and patients’ care and treatment. For example, tailoring social activities to include access for individual patients’ physical needs to make activities inclusive.

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.

Patients’ individual needs and feedback were considered and supported.

Information about patient’s unique and individual needs were recorded and respected by staff. For example, patient’s interests, people important to them and any protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. There was a multi-faith prayer room with ritual washing facilities, so patients could follow their chosen religion. Dietary needs based on choice, beliefs or religion were catered for.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan for their future. Patients told they were involved in the discharge planning process. Patients were aware of delays to their discharge and understood this process was out of the provider’s control. Patients who were ready to move into the independent accommodation on Sorrel ward were aware of delays and told us the facilities at the service promoted and supported their independence, for example having kitchen facilities on the wards and access to the patient’s laundry.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment, and their future. The service had discharge plans in place and included patient’s goals and aspirations of their future.

Staff worked together to support patients and followed health professional advice designed to achieve goals.

Significant work had been done to improve discharge planning to ensure patients were able to move on in their rehabilitation journey. Since the service opened in 2024, 2 patients had been discharged and 1 transferred to a different service.