Cygnet Views

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 patients and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. The service had been in breach of legal regulation relating to dignity and respect. By the time of this inspection, the service had made improvements and was no longer in breach of the regulation.

Patients told us staff knew them well and engaged with them in ways that helped them achieve their potential and meet individual needs. Staff wore name badges, and a staff board with names and roles was displayed in communal areas so patients knew who was supporting them. Patients also had access to both in-house and independent advocacy services.

At this inspection, the rating changed to Good, meaning patients were supported and treated with dignity and respect, and were involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff consistently demonstrated kindness, compassion, and respect in their interactions with patients. They were discreet, responsive, and offered emotional support and advice when needed. Patients told us they felt well cared for, listened to, and treated with dignity. One patient said they wished never to leave because they felt so safe and supported.

Staff understood and responded to individual preferences, including gender-related care preferences. Policies were in place to support patients’ cultural, social, and religious needs, though these had not been specifically requested during our inspection. Staff upheld confidentiality and maintained privacy and dignity at all times.

Our observations of staff–patient interactions confirmed a warm and respectful atmosphere. Staff engaged with patients in a thoughtful, person-centred way, promoting dignity, choice, and trust throughout the care environment.

Some patients raised concerns about night staff occasionally using their phones during shifts—an issue previously addressed by management. While the concern had not fully resolved, leaders continued to monitor and respond to this feedback. Importantly, this did not detract from the overall positive experience that most patients described.

Staff also felt confident speaking up about poor behaviour or attitudes among colleagues, which supported a transparent, learning-focused culture.

The service made appropriate adjustments to support disabled patients, including ensuring physical accessibility and meeting specific communication needs. However, due to the design of the building, it was not suitable for people with significant mobility issues, so patients requiring this level of support could not be accepted.

Easy-read materials were readily available to help patients understand their care, treatments, rights, and how to raise concerns. Interpreter services and translated materials were accessible, with easy-read formats particularly used for this patient group.

At the time of inspection, there were no patients with specific cultural or religious needs. One patient with dysphagia was provided with an appropriate diet, although they expressed that snack choices felt more limited than they would like. Patients had access to dietary options supporting their individual preferences. While no patients required specific spiritual or religious support during the inspection, policies and procedures were in place to accommodate such needs when necessary.

Staff demonstrated understanding and respect for individual preferences, including protected characteristics, supported by relevant policies, procedures, and training. Care was personalised, as evidenced by examples such as a patient supported to visit family approximately every eight weeks, with consideration given to family circumstances to avoid sensory overload.

Our observations of care confirmed that staff consistently treated people as individuals, responding sensitively to their unique needs and preferences. Interactions were personalised and respectful, further reinforcing the service’s commitment to person-centred care.

The service supported patients to have choice and control over their care, treatment, and wellbeing, promoting independence where possible. On admission, patients were introduced to key staff and given autonomy through agreements to work collaboratively, which helped foster ownership of their care. Groups such as, “No strings attached” allowed the multidisciplinary team to build rapport with patients in informal community settings, encouraging engagement and choice.

A varied weekly programme of activities was available, including pamper sessions, physical activities, baking, gardening, music appreciation, swimming, and social events like film and quiz nights. These activities aimed to promote health, wellbeing, and social inclusion. Occupational therapy provided supervised access to a safe kitchen area, supporting patients in developing practical daily living skills.

Patients maintained regular contact with family and friends, with flexible visiting arrangements and support to travel long distances when necessary, supporting the maintenance of important personal relationships.

However, feedback from staff and professionals indicated that opportunities to promote independence could have been better utilized. Patients often relied on staff to complete routine tasks such as making drinks or clearing bins, with limited encouragement to complete these themselves, which risked fostering dependency rather than self-sufficiency. Observations on site confirmed that staff generally used gentle persuasion to encourage participation in activities, respecting patients’ motivation and preferences.

Policies supported promoting independence, but there was room to enhance staff encouragement for patients to undertake tasks themselves to improve outcomes further.

Staff demonstrated strong awareness of patients’ individual risks and responded promptly to changes in behaviour or mental state. Risk management was a key focus, and staff used clear, structured protocols to monitor and respond to emerging concerns. Patients’ individual risk profiles were documented thoroughly, and proactive strategies were put in place to mitigate distress or harm.

Multidisciplinary teams worked collaboratively to anticipate heightened emotional needs. For example, one patient experienced significant distress around the anniversaries of close family members’ deaths. The MDT showed insight into these patterns and planned activities or supportive engagement around such dates to help reduce her emotional burden. A professional involved in the patient’s care told us: “I can honestly say I do not think she would receive better support anywhere else. The MDT have a good knowledge of the patient, so they can sometimes pre-empt a deterioration in presentation.”

Staff used a range of de-escalation techniques to manage behaviour safely and effectively, with physical interventions only used as a last resort. Staff were trained in managing immediate risks and employed communication strategies suited to individual needs to calm situations and avoid escalation.

Patients were involved in discussions about their needs and preferences, and staff adapted their communication style to promote understanding and comfort. Staff used structured risk management tools and technology to help identify when patients required urgent help, and support was provided quickly and appropriately.

Feedback from professionals and carers reflected that staff were responsive, compassionate, and able to act swiftly when patients were distressed or at risk. This contributed to a calm and supportive environment where patients felt heard and safe.

Staff at the service reported feeling supported, respected, and valued within their teams. Many expressed pride and positivity about working for the provider, with one staff member stating, “Plenty of professional development opportunities, completed leadership and management programmes. I feel Cygnet offers really good training opportunities.” This feedback reflected the organisation’s strong commitment to professional development.

An accessible occupational health service was available to support staff’s physical and emotional wellbeing. The service maintained a sickness rate of approximately 2.9% (latest figure from May) and experienced a turnover rate of around 20%, with six staff members leaving over the past year. Regular appraisals were conducted, including meaningful discussions about career development and succession planning, supported by quarterly HR reviews.

The service fostered a positive and motivating workplace culture. The occupational therapy service contributed by providing ongoing staff training, modelling best practices, and working collaboratively within the wider team to support staff development.