- Independent mental health service
Cygnet Kidsgrove Hospital
Assessment report published 6 May 2026
Contents
Ratings - Personality disorder services
Our view of the service
We assessed Cygnet Hospital Kidsgrove on the 12,13,16 and 19 January 2026 and asked for, and reviewed data related to the assessment.
Cygnet Hospital Kidsgrove was registered on 6 May 2025 to provide the regulated activities: Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The hospital had a Registered Manager in place.
The hospital provides a personality disorder service on Burleigh ward, an 11 bed highly specialised personality disorder rehabilitation service. The ward provides specialised support for women with a personality disorder and other complex needs.
We carried out this inspection as it was a newly registered service that had not yet been inspected. We assessed the assessment service group (ASG) personality disorder services.
We undertook an unannounced, comprehensive inspection of this service, looking at all 5 key questions to assess if services are safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.
We rated the service as Requires Improvement. The service was in breach of regulation 9, person centred care.
The hospital was clean, well maintained and care was delivered in a suitable environment. Care plans and risk assessments guided safe practice were updated regularly although they lacked patient involvement.
The ward did not always follow their policies and NICE guidelines in relation to the administration of controlled drugs. The lack of a second signatory for controlled drugs was noted on records for the previous 2 months.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Mental Health Act
Staff had easy access to administrative support and legal advice on implementation of the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice. Staff knew who their Mental Health Act administrators were, and relevant policies and procedures were in place. Mental Health Act training had been completed by 94% of staff at the time of inspection.
Staff had easy access to local Mental Health Act policies and procedures and to the Code of Practice.
Patients had access to independent mental health advocacy. Care plans documented that patients had their rights under the Mental Health Act explained in a way that they could understand with support from other professionals when needed. However, not all patients could recall having their rights read or understanding the reason for their section.
Staff stored copies of patients' detention papers correctly and so that they were available to all staff that needed access to them.
Staff ensured that patients were able to take Section 17 leave (permission for patients to leave hospital) when this had been granted. We saw that staff clearly documented where this had been granted.
Mental Capacity Act
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, including the five statutory principles. Staff knew where to get advice regarding the Mental Capacity Act, including deprivation of liberty safeguards. The service had arrangements to monitor adherence to the Mental Capacity Act. Staff audited the application of the Mental Capacity Act.
Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regard to significant decisions. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 4 patients, 2 family members, an advocate and an expert by experience. Overall patients and carers shared that their experience of the service was negative. Most of the patients and relatives we spoke to told us they did not feel the ward was safe. The reasoning given was the level of need of some of the patients and the lack of staff presence. Three patients and the advocate highlighted the high number of male staff on the ward. The impact of this was that patient’s preference for female support workers was not always met. Most patients told us that some of the staff were very supportive but not all. Experienced staff were busy as patients would often go to support them over other members of the team. One patient told us that staff did not always speak to them with kindness and compassion.
Families told us that there was a lack of communication from the ward and they were only aware of leave and incidents in the ward if their loved one told them about it. One family member raised concerns around medication errors and the lack of understanding of patient’s physical health conditions.