- Independent mental health service
Cygnet Hospital Wolverhampton
Assessment report published 11 December 2025
Contents
Ratings - Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units
Our view of the service
Cygnet Hospital Wolverhampton is a purpose built Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) and Acute hospital for men, in the West Midlands. The service supports the acute needs of adults requiring rapid access to mental health services, including those who may need an intensive care environment.
This is a new service, registered with CQC on 20 August 2024.
We carried out an on-site assessment on the 16 and 17 September 2025 and asked for, and reviewed data related to the assessment.
We carried out this inspection as it was a newly registered service that had not yet been inspected.
We assessed the assessment service group of Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric care units, this comprised of two wards. A 12 bed PICU ward and a 17 bed acute ward. We undertook an unannounced, comprehensive inspection of this service, looking at all 5 key questions to assess if services are safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.
We rated the service as good. The hospital was clean, well maintained and care was delivered in a suitable environment. Care plans and risk assessments guided safe practice and were updated regularly. People were supported to have choice and control and were involved in planning their care. Patients and carers feedback was sought and changes were made inline with this when appropriate. Managers had developed partnerships in the local community which benefited the patients.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Mental Health Act
Staff were trained in and had a good understanding of the Mental Health Act, the Code of Practice and the guiding principles.
Staff had easy access to administrative support and legal advice on implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. Staff knew who their Mental Health Act administrators were, and relevant policies and procedures were in place.
Staff had easy access to local Mental Health Act policies and procedures and to the Code of Practice.
Patients had access to independent mental health advocacy provided by Voiceability. Care plans documented clearly that patients had their rights under the Mental Health Act explained in a way that they could understand with support from other professionals when needed.
Staff stored copies of patients' detention papers correctly and so that they were available to all staff that needed access to them.
Staff ensured that patients were able to take Section 17 leave (permission for patients to leave hospital) when this has been granted. We saw that staff clearly documented where this had been granted.
Mental Capacity Act
The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards. Staff were aware of the policy and had access to it. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act, in particular the five statutory principles but application of this was not consistent within the recording of capacity assessments.
The provider also had a procedure document titled ‘assessing Mental Capacity to consent to treatment’. This procedure did not align with legislation, as it was an expectation that staff would complete a capacity assessment for all patients on admission. We saw that capacity assessments completed on admission, in line with this procedure, were not always time or decision specific and some lacked detail and patient involvement.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 9 patients, 7 on Carter ward and 2 on Shaw ward. We also spoke to 4 carers and reviewed feedback and community meeting minutes. Overall people’s experience was positive. They felt staff had helped and supported them. People said staff were kind, helpful and made them feel safe. People told us that staff helped them to meet their spiritual needs and helped them to access the local community.
None of the patients spoken to could remember being offered a copy of their care plans although one patient did tell us that staff had listened to them and included their family in planning their care and treatment.
We reviewed 20 feedback surveys which overall were positive. However, questions relating to patients’ knowledge of who their named nurse was and whether they had used advocacy were consistently answered with a negative response. In response to this we saw that staff ensured that advocacy was offered to patients especially those who needed additional support with communication or understanding their rights.
Community meetings were held regularly and attended by patients. It was clear from the minutes of these meetings that actions had been taken in relation to feedback from patients including, a note pad being placed in the gym, a book trolley being provided and furniture had been purchased for the garden.