Cygnet Hospital Sheffield

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people 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 people were truly respected and valued as individuals; and empowered as partners in their care in an exceptional way. Staff always treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They strongly understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff always involved young people in care planning and risk assessments and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff always informed and involved families and carers, which was reflected within all carer feedback. Observations, feedback from young people, families and staff confirmed that the service truly valued, respected and advocated for young people within the wards.

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.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect and feedback regarding this was overwhelmingly positive from young people, families, staff and external professionals. Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing young people with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Observations of staff and young people were completed using the structured observational framework tool (SOFI) and these identified positive interactions. We observed a cultural celebration event, where staff ensured all young people felt included, were happy and encouraged participation in a gentle manner. Young people were observed to be engaged, comfortable and enjoy this.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition and ensured their views were listened to through various forums. Where required staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. This included advocacy services who told us, “Staff are always very kind and caring always engaging young people. Referrals are always made very quickly and handovers are completed fully to ensure they have all the information they need to speak to new admissions without any distressing questions”.

Young people we spoke with were all very positive about staff support. Young people said staff treated them with respect and always try to help them feel safe. Young people told us that staff knew ways to distract them at times of distress and what was important to them. We spoke with 8 young people in total who were positive about their care and the approach of staff. We also spoke with 9 carers and reviewed both young people and family/carer surveys. Staff were reported to be kind and caring. One family member told us, “They have nothing but praise”. We spoke to an independent advocate who told us, “Staff are always kind, caring and compassionate with the young people”.

Carers feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Carers felt staff were kind, caring and supportive of their loved ones. Feedback included that, “Staff were very caring and also gave me information and I was updated every evening. This place is well led, well managed. The teamwork is amazing, from the kitchen porters to the directors. I cannot point to anything done incorrectly. The liaison officer contacted me twice a week to update me and they listened to my side. I could sleep. He was in the right place; all his needs were met”. We reviewed data from 13 carers who completed a satisfaction survey over the months of Dec 2025 and Jan 2026 and all feedback was positive. This was further corroborated by positive feedback from young people satisfaction surveys completed across the service.

Staff understood the individual needs of the young people, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. They felt that they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences. Staff also knew who their freedom to speak up guardian was. Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

Additional feedback from staff was that the service truly cared about staff wellbeing, was proactive in supporting staff to excel at their jobs and ensured people felt valued, respected and involved as a wider team. One person told us that “Staff always reminded people that they will get to the point of discharge, always encouraging and supportive and that staff had boundaries but are approachable. The culture is great and mastered an inclusive culture”.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. The service made adjustments for disabled patients and had ensured that access to the premises was suitable. There were lifts throughout the building and these were regularly maintained.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on and had the support of their ward team and advocate to do so. The My Rights magazine that the service produced was in an accessible language, with other languages available where needed. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by young people, as well as staff who were able to speak multiple languages. Managers always ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers as required. Staff could also facilitate young people to access spiritual support both in the hospital and in the community.

Kitchen staff were in regular discussions with young people during monthly meetings to ensure food choices and dietary requirements were being met. All menu’s offered alternative options, kitchen staff were made aware of any allergies or intolerances and maintained good communication with all wards.

All staff had good knowledge of the individual needs of the young people they cared for and were able to identify any signs that a young person was experiencing distress and acted upon this in a person-centred manner. Care plans were individualised, holistic and included the young person’s views, wishes and needs. Young people also told us that staff knew them well enough to know when they required space to self-regulate their emotions.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff created collaborative, individualised and focused care plans for young people, which outlined ways to maximise independence, assist with choice, and how staff could support them to maintain as much independence as possible with appropriate restrictions in place.

Care records evidenced that staff made all attempts to engage young people and families in discussion about their care to ensure their voice was heard, further helped by the family liaison officer. Young people and families were encouraged to provide feedback and share their views on their support and treatment both formally and informally. Family members felt included and listened to during the meetings that they attended. One carer told us “All the information I received is clear and well presented”, and “through formulation (a collaborative, evidence-based summary that explains a person's difficulties, combining biological, psychological, and social factors), ward round and care planning meetings it was clear there was a formal route, as well as the daily calls for the informal information exchange” and “We were fully engaged with by the team, they took time to explain everything to us in a language we understood”.

There were information leaflets throughout the wards, including networks, therapy sessions and activities available, advocacy services and local services in the area relevant to the service age group and what was happening within the service.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional in how they listened to and understood people’s needs, views, and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as ligature risks, items that may be used to self-harm, potential sexual safety risks, risk to staff and others and environmental risk factors.

All wards and professionals were part of the Positive and Safe meetings, including teaching staff within the service. We reviewed meeting notes where risk alerts and significant events were discussed, including items young people may bring into the wards with hidden risks. As part of this meeting, discussions were held around observations and closed-circuit television audits. All wards had CCTV in communal areas, excluding bathrooms and bedrooms, which could be reviewed following any incidents. Reviews found that staff were punctual in conducting the checks when allocated to intermittent observations, the interactions observed with young people were always supportive and caring. A positive theme observed during the audit was that the management of the physical intervention holds has been observed to be used as a last resort and for the shortest time possible. Staff also supported each other in implementing the correct holds techniques.

Documentation of the restraints in incident reports was well completed, although at times the intervention section lacked information regarding the different restraint positions used. However, this was addressed with staff and reports requiring further information decreased, indicating a positive outcome from contacting the reporter individually to address the matter. All young people had care plans reflecting the use of physical interventions and when this would be appropriate.

Data showed the service had a significant reduction in long term segregation (LTS) on Pegasus ward due to being able to move young people onto a more appropriate level of security more quickly due to having two wards accessible to accept young people requiring an intensive setting. Where one ward would not able to accept due to acuity or the dynamic between young people who may have known each other on Pegasus, the other ward would be able to accept.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

We spoke with 15 members of staff, all of different disciplines as part of this inspection. Staff told us that they always felt respected, supported and valued within their teams. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team and had worked for the service ranging from months to upwards of 15 years. Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service provided by Cygnet and data showed the service’s staff sickness and absence were similar to the average for the provider/NHS services.

The service recognised staff success within the service and celebrated the success of staff through communications with the wider teams. Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported, with staff we spoke with corroborating this. Staff well-being was a focus of senior leaders. The 2025 staff survey had shown improvements from the previous year, with plans to further enhance engagement for the 2026 survey.

The provider also ensured that there was counselling for social workers due to the nature of the work they undertook. The service also provided trauma care, access to psychology, physiotherapy, free care parking spaces and meals, mental health first aider training and free sanitary products for staff.