Cygnet Acer Clinic

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

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

Patients were not moved between wards unless there was a clinical reason to do so or it was in their best interests. Patients were not delayed in hospital for reasons within the provider's control. Where discharge was delayed, leaders described challenges securing appropriate community placements, support packages, and aftercare arrangements to meet patients identified needs. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy, and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service and family relationships. The service met the needs of 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. 

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

Care records showed that staff-based care and treatment on patients’ individual needs, preferences, strengths, and aspirations. For example, patients had personalised goals relating to increased independence, community access, and future discharge from hospital. Staff worked with patients to identify the support and interventions required to achieve these goals. 

Patients were involved in planning and reviewing their care and treatment. Records demonstrated that patients participated in discussions about their goals, progress and future through care reviews and multidisciplinary meetings. Staff adapted care and support in response to changes in patients’ needs, risks, and progress. 

Staff empowered patients to make decisions about their care and treatment wherever possible. Patients were supported to express their views, identify what was important to them and participate in decisions affecting their care, treatment, and rehabilitation. 

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

Staff worked with a range of internal and external professionals involved in patients' care, including care coordinators, commissioners, safeguarding teams, and community services. Leaders described regular multidisciplinary involvement in care planning, treatment reviews, and discharge planning. 

Patients accessed community leave, appointments, and community-based rehabilitation activities as part of their care and treatment. Occupational therapy interventions included community skills development and opportunities for patients to access activities outside of the hospital environment. Patients also had the opportunity to participate in projects and activities with local community organisations, including Wilder Chesterfield and Chesterfield Animal Rescue. The service also provided educational sessions for patients, carers and relatives, including training relating to PTSD, to support understanding of patients' needs and promote successful discharge and continuity of care following discharge from hospital.

Stakeholder feedback confirmed that the service invited external partners to meetings and worked collaboratively with safeguarding services. One commissioning stakeholder reported difficulties achieving a shared understanding of community discharge options and described occasions where progress towards discharge had been delayed. 

Leaders acknowledged that discharge planning could be complex and described challenges securing appropriate community placements and support arrangements for some patients. Staff continued to work with external professionals and agencies as part of discharge planning and ongoing rehabilitation.

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

Staff identified and recorded patients' communication needs within care records. Staff had access to interpreter services and translation technology to support communication with patients whose first language was not English. This ensured any identified language barriers were removed. 

Information governance systems were in place to support the confidentiality and secure storage of patient records. 

Leaders made notifications to external bodies when required. Stakeholder feedback confirmed that safeguarding partners received information about safeguarding concerns and that staff regularly sought advice regarding safety planning. Commissioners reported they were invited to the relevant meetings and received information when requested. 

Staff considered individual communication needs when providing information and supporting patients to participate in decisions about their care and treatment.

Patients had opportunities to provide feedback through community meetings, individual discussions with staff, care reviews, and independent advocacy services. Patients also had access to information about how to raise concerns and make complaints. 

We reviewed minutes from several recent community meetings which demonstrated that patients regularly raised concerns, requests, and suggestions about the service. A "You Said, We Did" process was used to record issues or concerns raised by patients, allocate actions to named staff members and provide updates on progress. Examples included requests for improvements to communal areas, environmental concerns, access to care plans, staff communication during the night and arrangements relating to activities and ward facilities. Meeting minutes demonstrated that actions were monitored and updates provided to patients. Staff also facilitated joint reflective practice sessions attended by both staff and patients, providing opportunities to discuss incidents, share experiences and contribute to learning and service improvement. Staff involved a patient representative in the recruitment of new staff. The patient representative participated in interviews and developed role-specific questions to help ensure prospective staff could meet the needs of patient

Patients had access to independent mental health advocacy services. Advocacy feedback indicated that staff listened to feedback and patient requests and that advocates were able to raise concerns and suggestions on patients' behalf. 

Care records demonstrated that patients were involved in discussions about their care, treatment and rehabilitation goals. Staff supported patients to participate in reviews of their care and considered their views, wishes and preferences when planning and reviewing care and treatment. 

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

Patients had access to a multidisciplinary team that included nursing staff, doctors, psychologists, occupational therapists, pharmacists and social workers. Staff supported patients to access physical healthcare, specialist healthcare services and community-based appointments when required. 

Care records and discussions with leaders demonstrated that discharge planning formed part of the patients’ rehabilitation programmes. Staff worked with care coordinators, commissioners, local authorities and community services when planning ongoing care and support. Where applicable, care plans referred to Section 117 aftercare arrangements as part of discharge planning.

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

Patients were able to share their views through individual care reviews, advocacy support and community meetings. Advocacy services reported that the multidisciplinary team listened to feedback and patient requests and were receptive to concerns raised on behalf of patients. 

Staff received training relevant to equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights and leaders described monitoring patient feedback and experiences to identify areas for improvement. 

Patients were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. 

Staff worked with patients to identify and plan for future goals, including increased independence, community access and discharge from hospital. Patients were involved in discussions about their care, treatment and future aspirations and were encouraged to participate in decisions that affected them. 

Staff supported patients to develop care plans that reflected patients’ needs, wishes, strengths and goals. For example, patients had identified rehabilitation goals relating to independent living, developing self-management skills and progressing towards discharge.  

Staff involved a range of professionals and external agencies in planning the care and treatment of patients with complex needs. Care records and discussions with leaders demonstrated involvement from multidisciplinary team members, care coordinators, commissioners, community services and other relevant professionals.