Cygnet Hospital Sheffield

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating remained good. This meant services were tailored to meet the needs of individuals and delivered to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care. Staff managed beds very well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not moved between wards except for their benefit and safety. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, education and 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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with young people, how to respond to any relevant changes in young people’s needs. We reviewed 9 care records that were individualised, personal and included the individual needs of the young person. Goals were tailored to specific needs and what support was required for the young person to achieve discharge safely.

One young person exampled how staff knew how to support them when distressed based on their preferences and interests outside of hospital. Care records were holistic and included cultural, social, environmental and sensory needs. Young people we spoke with all felt they were treated individually and with respect. Nurses ensured young people had 1:1 engagement to discuss their care plans, and provide feedback to shape their care in a way which supported and benefited their mental health recovery.

Care record reviews of initial assessments obtained important personal preferences, life histories and detailed what was important to the person. Where young people could not make decisions about their own care due to the nature of their illness, or lack of capacity to do so, staff involved carers where possible and made efforts to ensure care would be in line with their preferences and detailed this in care plans. Staff were knowledgeable about patients’ history, and this made engagement very meaningful and person-centred.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had an excellent understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Young people had access to education throughout their admission and teachers were involved in meetings relating to risk, safeguarding and discharge planning where appropriate to ensure continuity into the community.

External stakeholders told us that the service ensured open communication with the Integrated Care Boards and that the service offered high levels of transparency and excellent information sharing to ensure young people’s discharges and transitions back into the community were well supported. We spoke with the Provider Collaborative who told us that links with wider community teams had vastly improved within the service and that dedication of staff to ensuring young people had the best possible outcomes ensured this. (Provider Collaboratives are partnerships involving at least two NHS trusts with a shared purpose and effective decision-making arrangements. All trusts providing acute health services are required to be part of one or more provider collaboratives as part of new ways of working across health and care in England)

Young people were supported to maintain important community links with family and carers. Some young people at the service were not from the local area and when speaking with family members, they told us staff were always accommodating and ensured they had longer visits due to driving long distances to visit. Phone calls were always encouraged and the family liaison officer helped facilitate information updates. All young people we spoke with felt they were able to maintain important relationships whilst in hospital.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at developing appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Data showed that the service always made timely notifications to external bodies as needed and information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records which were securely stored electronically.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard and ensured that information was provided to people in a way that they could understand, including easy read and other languages. Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. We observed posters on each ward detailing how young people and staff could raise concerns. All information was included within the My Rights magazine for young people. There were also policies relating to complaints and compliments.

Family members were very positive when asked about communication with the wards. Thirteen carers completed a survey over December 2025 and January 2026; 4 from Pegasus, 3 from Unicorn and 6 from Griffin which were fed back into quality assurance meetings for benchmarking. Feedback from the survey included;

• “‘Staff are professional. Staff do daily handovers and updates from the family. Liaison twice a week. The whole team is excellent. It is a safe hospital. Everything is done in a timely manner”
• “I don't have to follow up on anything as the staff have good time management skills. I am very impressed. The care is as good as advertised. I feel happy that my son is safe and well looked after”.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service was good at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The service promoted young people to have a voice in their care and always actively sought feedback around their experiences throughout admission. Staff ensured that young people were given different ways to express their views, such as community meetings, My Plan document, in ward rounds and through surveys.

There had been 29 complaints in relation to the service between January and March 2026. Twenty-one of these were managed informally or through early resolution processes and 8 were responded to formally. On review of data, there were no outliers in terms of complaints or themes identified.

Young people knew how to complain or raise concerns. Most we spoke with told us they had never had to make a complaint but would feel comfortable to do so if they needed to. Young people told us they received feedback through community meetings, if a complaint had been made at this forum. We observed a community meeting where staff fed back responses to concerns raised by young people.

Staff protected patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment by supporting them through the process. Each ward had a social worker and safeguarding lead allocated as well as regular visits from an advocate and expert by experience. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately and knew when concerns required further escalation. Staff told us they received feedback on any lessons learned from investigating complaints

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access appropriate individualised care, support and treatment when they needed it. Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met. For example, wheelchair users were placed in bedrooms at ground level or had access to lifts. Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, and all wards had an allocated occupational therapist available. We spoke with members of the occupational therapy team who felt they had the correct equipment to keep people safe.

There was adequate medical cover day and night. A doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital. Each ward had its own consultant with cover arrangements in place. Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care, such as Section 117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services. Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers/co-ordinators and this was fed back by external stakeholders. Ward social workers maintained good links with local authorities and care was joined up and consistent.

Discharges were never delayed for other than clinical reasons or changes to risk. Staff ensured that safety was paramount and that all community resources were in place so that discharges were safe and successful. In the last 12 months, discharges from inpatient wards resulted in issues in locating community placements for young people with higher risks.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. Staff and leaders used innovative ways to gather information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage and staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

All wards had achieved 100% training completion in equality and diversity. The service had two leads for the Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework (PCREF) (an NHS England anti-racism and accountability framework designed to reduce racial inequalities in mental health services) and the wards participated in cultural awareness activities, staff training delivered or planned on cultural awareness/ PCREF including regular masterclasses. The wards encouraged co-production of activities, ideas and projects from staff, young people and families. The service regularly held cultural learning and different events on site. At the time of our inspection, we observed staff and young people celebrating Holi (a vibrant Hindu "Festival of Colours" and "Festival of Spring) which was extremely well attended. The service promoted cultural awareness and celebrated diversity amongst young people and staff. The service had plans to celebrate St Patricks Day, Eid al Fitr and Easter and African World Heritage Day.

Staff had the opportunity to attend Multicultural Network Ambassadors Meetings, Exploring Culture and Cross-Cultural Communication Masterclass (PCREF), PCREF Understanding Racial Trauma in Mental Health Masterclass and Multicultural Network Steering Group Quarterly Meeting. Each ward had multi-cultural ambassadors to promote inclusion and help celebrate diversity within each ward.

We scored the service as 3. 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. Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings, including hopes for discharge and the future.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of young people with complex needs by utilising a multi-disciplinary approach, involving the young person and their families. Staff encouraged young people to attend their education sessions to help prepare them for education on admission. Planning for the future included teachers, social workers, mental health professionals and external support where required. Care plans and discharge plans were robust to ensure needs were identified and plans were in place to offer the best support.