Cygnet Views

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 patients’ needs.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. At this inspection, the rating changed to Good, meaning patients’ needs were met through good organisation and effective service delivery.

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.

People told us they felt involved in decisions about their care, and family members confirmed their views were regularly sought, including during remote ward rounds. Staff described using clear communication methods and accessible materials, such as easy-read formats, to ensure patients understood their care and treatment options. Policies and training reinforced the importance of making reasonable adjustments to meet individual needs, including those protected under the Equality Act.

We observed staff promoting patient autonomy through initiatives like the “No Strings Attached” group and a broad range of activities designed to encourage engagement and independence. However, some professional feedback noted that staff could have done more to support patients in completing daily tasks independently. The multidisciplinary team demonstrated strong awareness of patients’ emotional needs, planning activities to reduce distress around significant anniversaries, which showed a proactive and personalised approach.

Systems were in place to ensure ongoing review and shared decision-making, with care plans reflecting the whole person—physical, mental, and social needs. Staff confirmed they regularly involved patients and their families, using person-centred approaches consistently. Our observations aligned with this, showing staff responded promptly and respectfully to patients’ needs, with no concerns identified.

The speech and language therapy team provided a total communication environment, offering both 1:1 and group sessions that addressed a variety of communication skills, social skills, and individual needs. A range of personalised, accessible information was provided to facilitate learning and understanding, supporting patient involvement in their care.

Staff supported patients to explore volunteering opportunities, with one patient being actively supported to seek a placement at a local café, reflecting personalised care planning. There were no current examples of patients engaging in work or education. Family and carer contact was facilitated flexibly and effectively; patients were supported to maintain important relationships, even over long distances, through travel assistance and remote communication options.

While no patients required access to places of worship at the time of inspection, policies and procedures were in place to accommodate spiritual needs if requested. Care coordination was strong, with multidisciplinary teams working closely together and maintaining regular communication with external agencies. Feedback from partner organisations was very positive, noting effective information sharing and collaboration.

A good example of coordinated care was observed during discharge planning, where the multidisciplinary team involved the patient and community services to ensure a smooth transition. Virtual meetings were held with potential providers to match the patient’s long-term care needs, and training was planned for community providers to support continuity. Patients and carers did not raise any concerns about how well their care was coordinated or adapted to their individual preferences.

Staff consistently provided information in accessible formats, with all materials developed by speech and language therapists to meet patients’ communication needs. Individual communication requirements were clearly recorded in patients’ care plans and regularly reviewed to ensure they remained appropriate.

Confidentiality and data protection of patient records were maintained in line with established policies and procedures, ensuring personal information was securely safeguarded. Patients, families, carers, and commissioners reported feeling well-informed about patient progress, reflecting effective communication and regular updates from staff.

Information about treatments, patients’ rights, complaints procedures, and local services was delivered in ways that patients could understand, supporting informed decision-making. Feedback from patients and carers indicated no concerns regarding the clarity or timeliness of the information provided, demonstrating the service’s commitment to accessible and transparent communication.

Patients, families, and carers were well-informed about how to raise concerns or complaints and felt confident that their feedback would be taken seriously and handled with compassion. The hospital director was noted for being approachable and responsive, often personally meeting with patients to listen to their concerns and act accordingly, which patients greatly appreciated.

A complaints policy was in place and accessible, alongside a complaints log where all concerns were formally recorded and investigated. This ensured transparency and accountability in how feedback was managed.

A recurring concern about staff sleeping or using mobile phones during shifts was raised by patients’ multiple times. The provider demonstrated active listening by conducting managerial supervisions with all support staff, sharing feedback openly, and implementing clear actions such as regular closed circuit television (CCTV) spot checks, monthly audits, and out-of-hours managerial presence. Staff were reminded of professional expectations and the potential for disciplinary action if standards were not met. This ongoing dialogue shows the service’s commitment to involving staff and patients in addressing issues and improving care.

Staff also reflected on feedback regarding promoting patient independence and continued to encourage patient engagement in daily activities. Regular reviews of patient risk assessments and thorough communication with advocacy services further demonstrated that patient voices were central to care planning and safety.

Overall, patients felt their feedback was valued, acted upon, and contributed to shaping service improvements, reflecting a culture of openness and involvement.

The service supports patients without significant mobility needs, as the building’s design limits reasonable adjustments for those with mobility impairments. Despite this, 24/7 medical cover is provided, and the hospital is located near a local acute hospital to ensure timely emergency support.

Discharge planning begins from admission, with patients’ wishes actively considered. The multidisciplinary team works closely with community services to ensure smooth transitions, including person-centred placement planning and access to post-discharge care such as Section 117 aftercare. For example, one patient’s discharge involved virtual meetings with community providers and staff arranging training to meet long-term care needs.

The average length of stay is around 18 months, with some patients requiring extended placements due to complex needs. Staff aim to discharge patients promptly when clinically appropriate, and no concerns about delays or access were raised by patients or carers.

Overall, the service provides accessible care within the limits of the environment, ensuring equity by actively planning and supporting patient transitions and post-discharge support.

Staff actively promoted a culture where people felt empowered to share their views and experiences, including those at risk of unequal outcomes. Feedback from patients was valued and used to inform care and support planning, ensuring people’s voices were respected and acted upon.

The service had clear policies aligned with Equality, diversity, and inclusion principles to prevent disadvantage and promote fairness for all, including those with protected characteristics. Staff completed mandatory training in equality, diversity, and human rights, which supported their understanding of potential inequalities and how to address them.

Although there was limited diversity within the patient group, staff remained vigilant to individual needs and made reasonable adjustments where necessary, such as providing accessible information and engaging with specialist communication services when needed. Staff worked proactively to ensure care was equitable and responsive.

This approach fostered an inclusive environment where care and treatment were shaped around the needs of those most likely to experience poorer outcomes, promoting dignity and respect for all.

Staff actively supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and future treatment options, including discussions around do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) DNACP when appropriate. Care plans were personalised, reflecting each individual’s needs, wishes, and feelings to ensure their preferences guided ongoing support.

The MDT worked closely with patients, their families, and relevant healthcare professionals to coordinate complex care needs, ensuring seamless communication and joint decision-making.

The service demonstrated a clear commitment to involving all necessary parties, including community teams and external providers, particularly during discharge planning and transitions. Virtual meetings with potential providers and tailored training were arranged to support continuity and quality of care beyond the service.

Overall, planning was collaborative and person-centred, aiming to meet current and future needs with respect and compassion.