6 May 2022
Following our previous inspection in June 2021 the Chief Inspector of Hospitals, Ted Baker, placed Cygnet Views into Special Measures. We rated Cygnet Views as Inadequate overall, Inadequate for Safe, Effective and Well Led, Requires improvement for Caring and Good for Responsive. We undertook this inspection to assess whether sufficient improvements had been made. We found improvements made at this inspection were sufficient to remove Special Measures.
6 May 2022
We found improvements made at this inspection were sufficient to remove Special Measures.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. 'Right support, right care, right culture' is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
About the service
Cygnet Views is an independent hospital managed by Cygnet Learning Disabilities Limited situated in Matlock, Derbyshire.
Cygnet Views provides care for up to ten women who have a learning disability and complex mental health needs. At the time of inspection, the service was supporting five people.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
The service was able to show how they met the principles of right support, right care, right culture.
People and relatives told us staff supported people to take part in activities and pursue their interests in their local area. People had opportunities to go to the local college and local arts centre. One person said they liked to go out for walks and could go out when they wanted.
Staff supported people to play an active role in maintaining their own health and wellbeing. Staff gave people information about well woman checks and supported people to attend these. Staff supported people to cook their own breakfast and promoted healthy alternatives.
The service gave people care and support in a safe, clean, well equipped, well-furnished and well-maintained environment. This had improved since our previous inspection, the environment met people’s sensory and physical needs, while making it feel homely. Staff were clear that if a person with limited mobility was referred to stay there, they would not be able to meet their needs. This would limit their quality of life as they would find it difficult to access the garden and the cobbled stones in the car park would limit their opportunity to use the salon and access the meeting room.
People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity. People said that staff respected their belongings and always knocked on their door before entering. Staff understood and responded to people’s individual needs with genuine regard for the person. One person said, “Staff are good, patient, nice. Staff listen to you and support you in every way.”
People received care that supported their needs and aspirations, was focused on their quality of life, and followed best practice. People had developed their plans that included their goals and hopes and dreams for the future.
Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. The service worked well with other agencies to do so. They had worked hard to improve links with the local safeguarding teams and the local police. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. People and relatives told us they felt safe which had improved since our previous inspection.
Staff placed people's wishes, needs and rights at the heart of everything they did. The registered manager and staff understand the importance of family to the people. However, one relative said communication could be better, they were unable to attend their relatives last review and did not receive notes from it. Relatives said they had not been able to visit during the COVID-19 pandemic, but they hoped this would change as restrictions eased.
People and those important to them, including advocates, were involved in planning their care. Staff knew and understood people well and were responsive, supporting their aspirations to live a quality life of their choosing. We saw staff fully involving people with activities and tasks of their choosing. People said they liked going to the cinema and bowling.
People's quality of life was enhanced by the service's culture of improvement and inclusivity. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The leadership of the service had worked hard to create a learning culture. Staff felt valued and empowered to suggest improvements and question poor practice. There was a transparent and open and honest culture between people, those important to them, staff and leaders. They all felt confident to raise concerns and complaints.