Cygnet Kenney House

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement.

Requires improvement: This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

Staff did not always treat patients with compassion and kindness. They did not always understand the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. However, they respected patients’ privacy and dignity. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We do not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion. However, we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion. However, staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We saw and carers told us that staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients mostly showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice. However patients told us that staff responses were not always helpful when they were distressed and staffing levels meant they were not able to access the outside space to self regulate, the ward was upstairs and required staff escort to access the outside space.

Staff did not always support patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Patients told us that staff did not always explain what their treatments or interventions were.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. Patients told us and records confirmed that patients accessed community services.

Patients said staff mostly treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Although patients told us this varied, some staff did not respond with helpful responses when they were distressed.

Staff did not always understand the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Care plans did not always include how to respond to patients when distressed and what method of communication was most helpful for individual patients.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Patients told us that staff did not always maintain the confidentiality of information about patients as they heard staff talking about other patients.

We do not always treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service did not always make adjustments for disabled patients – for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs. We saw care plans which included patient’s communication preferences of written communication and that that was facilitated within ward rounds. However, we reviewed 3 care plans for patients who were diagnosed autistic or in the process of being assessed for autism, their communication section of the care plan did not always advise staff how best to enable patients to communicate and how staff should respond if patients were overwhelmed or finding it difficult to communicate. However, positive behaviour support plans and one page profiles were in place which included strategies for staff to use if patients were distressed.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. Information was on display in the ward.

The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group (for example, in easy-read form on wards for people with a learning disability). The models of care information was available in easy read format.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients. The service had access to interpretation services as required.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. However, patients told us there had been some difficulties with food not being labelled as vegetarian and the food not being to patient’s tastes and preferences. However, this had recently improved with the appointment of a permanent chef who had attended the ward community meeting to discuss food, which meant patients felt involved and listened to regarding future menus.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support.

We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

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.

Patients attended their ward rounds and told us they felt listened to by the multidisciplinary team.

There was an advocate who regularly visited the ward to assist patients with understanding their rights.

Activities included shopping and cooking and community engagement to develop patient’s independence.

We do not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We do not always respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were not always aware of or dealt with any specific risk issues. Patients told us, and investigations confirmed that staff at times did not complete enhanced observations as prescribed. This meant patients were not receiving the level of support and supervision required.

Staff did not always identify and respond to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. We observed the evening handover on 11 September 2025, risks were not handed over to staff and the handover records did not include risks for 3 of the patients. Handover records had conflicting information regarding observation levels. This meant staff were not provided with consistent information about observation levels and may not have observed patients at the prescribed levels.

Staff did not always use de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Patients told us that staff responded in unhelpful ways when they were distressed, for example, by telling them to stop crying. Patients also told us that helpful techniques used in previous placements, for example the use of ice packs and staff sitting with you to explore feelings and emotions, did not always happen in this service.

We do not always care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff, and we do not always support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff did not always feel respected, supported and valued. Staff felt there were not enough staff to meet the needs of patients and at times the ward was not safe. With staff telling us they were unable to complete all of their required tasks within the shift, resulting in them staying later.

Staff did not always feel positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. The de-brief book, completed by nursing and support staff at the end of the shift showed staff felt stressed, unsupported, burnt out, short staffed, unable to take their break. This meant we were not assured staff received appropriate support and supervision to enable them to carry out their duties safely.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.

The service’s staff sickness and absence were lower than the average for the provider.

The service’s staff survey showed that staff did not feel there were enough staff to fulfil their role.