Cygnet Acer Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved patients and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. 

This meant patients were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. Patients were involved in decisions about their care, treatment, and rehabilitation goals. Care records demonstrated that patients participated in care reviews and treatment planning and had access to advocacy services and communication support when required. We observed positive and caring interactions between staff and patients. 

However, patients provided mixed feedback about their experiences of care and some raised concerns about compassion and support from some staff. While experiences varied, we found that staff treated patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care and treatment. 

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

Patients provided mixed feedback about their experiences of care. One patient raised concerns about privacy, dignity, and the behaviour of some staff. Another patient described occasions when they received little interaction from staff. An independent person who visited the service also described variable staff attitudes.  

However, on the day of our visit we observed staff providing kind and compassionate care to patients and positive interactions between staff and patients. One patient said staff went the “extra mile” to support them, while another said their key worker was available to speak with them and that they trusted most staff. Staff also described colleagues as caring and supportive.  

Staff treated patients as individuals and made sure people's care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of people's strengths, abilities, aspirations, and individual circumstances. 

Care records showed that staff developed personalised care and rehabilitation plans which reflected patients' individual goals, strengths, risks, and aspirations. Rehabilitation programmes were based on individual progress rather than fixed timescales, and staff adapted support according to patients' needs, abilities, and stage of recovery. 

Staff considered patients' communication needs when planning and delivering care. Care records included information about communication needs where required and staff used this information to support effective engagement. Staff supported patients with access to interpreter services and used communication technology to support patients and staff to communicate where language barriers were identified. Information about care, treatment and patients' rights was available to patients and staff took steps to ensure patients understood information relevant to their care and treatment. 

Staff recognised patients' individual preferences and supported patients to access care and treatment in ways that met their needs. Staff considered patients' abilities, goals and preferences when planning rehabilitation activities and community opportunities and adapted interventions to support engagement and participation.

Staff promoted people’s independence, so patients knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing. 

Patients were encouraged to take an active role in their care, treatment, and rehabilitation. Care records demonstrated that patients identified their own goals and aspirations, including goals relating to greater independence, future accommodation, and discharge from hospital. Staff supported patients to participate in planning and reviewing their care and encouraged them to contribute to decisions about their treatment and future. Staff supported patients to maintain their connections with friends, family, or community. 

Occupational therapy interventions focused on developing skills and confidence to support independence. Staff used a range of activities and interventions to promote daily living skills, social participation, and self-management. Free time was incorporated into the therapeutic timetable to provide opportunities for patients to exercise choice and take greater ownership of how they spent their time. Staff also supported patients to identify activities that reflected their interests, abilities, and rehabilitation goals. 

Where appropriate, patients were supported to increase their levels of responsibility and autonomy through individually planned rehabilitation programmes. 

Leaders described rehabilitation as being centred on individual goals and aspirations. 

Some patients  raised concerns about the use of temporary staff. Patients told us that agency and bank staff did not always know their individual triggers, early warning signs, preferred coping strategies, or support needs. Some patients described feeling less supported, less understood, and less contained when unfamiliar staff were working on the ward, particularly during periods of heightened distress or increased risk. 

Staff used de-escalation approaches, sensory interventions, and increased support to help patients manage distress and reduce escalation. However, feedback from patients indicated that support was not always delivered consistently and that staff did not always respond in a way that reflected their individual needs and circumstances. This meant patients did not always experience support that minimised their distress or responded effectively to their immediate needs. 

Leaders had recognised some of the concerns raised by patients and described measures to improve continuity of care, including reducing reliance on temporary staff and increasing the number of permanent staff within the team. 

However, staff had systems to identify and respond to changing risks. Leaders described the use of daily safety summaries, handovers, positive behaviour support plans, risk management plans, supervision, and multidisciplinary reviews to support staff to understand patients' needs and respond to changes in presentation. 

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of staff and supported and enabled them to deliver person-centred care. 

Staff felt supported by their colleagues and leaders. Staff spoke positively about working within the team and described leaders as visible and approachable. Staff said they could raise concerns and felt listened to by managers. 

Managers supported staff through regular supervision, appraisal, and training. Supervision and appraisal compliance was high within the reviewed period of previous 12 months. Staff gave positive feedback regarding supervision and training. One staff member said, “I receive the training and supervision I need to carry out my role.” Appraisals included discussions about performance, development, and learning needs. Leaders identified ongoing learning requirements and provided opportunities for staff to develop their knowledge and skills. One staff member said, “I have received support when progressing to the senior role.”  

Staff had access to regular team meetings, reflective practice opportunities, and support from managers. Leaders described a range of measures used to support staff wellbeing and team functioning, including staff surveys, reflective practice sessions, and monitoring team dynamics. Leaders recognised the importance of staff wellbeing and identified staff wellbeing as one of the strengths of the service. 

Staff felt respected, valued and supported in their roles, and leaders had systems in place to support staff wellbeing, development, and their ability to deliver person-centred care.