Cygnet Elowen Hospital

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

Responsive- this means we looked for evidence that the service met patients’ needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Care plans reflected patients’ physical, mental, emotional, and social needs and patients and relatives felt involved in collaborative decision-making. Services were coordinated with other providers where possible. Information was available and accessible, but explanations about rights, particularly for informal patients, were sometimes confusing or delayed. Feedback and complaints mechanisms were available to patients and their relatives. Patients had access to appropriate care, facilities, and post-discharge services, and reasonable adjustments were made for disabilities. Staff were aware of equality and human rights, Patients could express preferences regarding future care, including resuscitation decisions.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

Patients had care plans in place and were able to access them. Staff involved patients, and where appropriate their relatives, in planning care and support so that it reflected individual needs. Patients and relatives were generally kept informed about changes. However, some patients reported that they were not always informed promptly when changes were made to their care plans, restrictions, or medication.

Staff made reasonable adjustments to meet individual needs. For example, they adapted the ensuite facilities for one patient with mobility needs and had plans in place to develop a wet room to further support independence. Staff delivered person-centred care through ongoing assessments, although some protected characteristics and associated risks had not always been fully explored or mitigated within care planning.

Staff monitored and responded to patients’ changing needs through regular reviews, daily handovers, and updates to care plans, ensuring information was shared across the team. Leaders maintained oversight through audits and review processes to ensure care plans remained accurate and reflective of patients’ physical, mental, emotional, and social needs. They also promoted involvement by encouraging patients and relatives to participate in ward rounds and community meetings.

Interactions between staff and patients were consistently person-centred. During the inspection, staff engaged positively with patients, and there were examples of relaxed and supportive interactions, including laughter and shared activities. Observations of ward rounds demonstrated that staff discussed care openly with patients, involved them in decisions, and communicated changes appropriately.

Patients reported that while the quality of care had improved, their early experiences were negatively affected by the absence of a full multidisciplinary team (MDT) and limited access to specialist support and training. This impacted the consistency and delivery of care. Although these issues had largely been addressed by the time of the inspection, some commissioned specialist support had not always been provided as intended, which continued to leave gaps in care.

Patients felt their needs were considered in collaboration with relatives, carers and external professionals. One healthcare professional told us, “The update we are given is detailed and shows that they know our client and understand her needs very well. We receive weekly updates also.” When patients’ needs increased, staff took timely action to secure appropriate support. For example, when it became clear that one patient could no longer be supported safely in their current placement, this was escalated to the integrated care board (ICB) to secure an alternative arrangement.

By the time of the inspection, continuity of care had improved. Patients were supported more consistently by familiar staff, following recruitment and team restructuring that reduced reliance on temporary personnel. This addressed earlier disruption caused by high staff turnover and staffing instability.

However, some patients’ experiences had been affected by the team’s limited specialist knowledge during the early period after opening. Staff without experience in disordered eating or personality disorders had initially worked without specialist guidance, which affected care. Although this had been addressed through targeted training by the time of inspection, these improvements were recent and not yet fully embedded, meaning earlier challenges continued to influence some patients’ experiences.

Patients received information in ways they could understand, and the service took steps to support communication when additional help was needed. For example, one patient said, “They explain my rights and give information in a way I can understand. When I’m low, I find it easier to write things down, and I communicate that way.” A staff member explained, “When [patient’s name] gets overwhelmed, they find it hard to talk. They have communication cards to use when in distress.” Another patient who had dyslexia received information in larger font to support their understanding.

Patients and relatives reported that personal information was kept safely and securely. When joining the service, patients received clear information about their rights.

Staff understood patients’ individual communication needs and could provide examples of how they made information accessible. They were also aware of GDPR requirements and ensured that data was recorded, stored securely, and only shared with consent where possible. Leaders demonstrated awareness of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and ensured it was put into practice effectively.

Policies were in place and aligned with current best practice guidance on GDPR and AIS. Information for patients and relatives was available in a range of formats, including communication cards and larger print. Information was shared appropriately.

We observed information boards in communal areas displaying details about patients’ rights, available therapies, and activities, supporting transparency and accessibility for everyone using the service.

Patients and relatives had access to the service’s complaints policy, which was presented in formats they could understand. For example, a “Tell Us What You Think” poster in communal areas clearly explained how patients and their families could provide feedback or make a complaint. Relatives told us that when they raised concerns, these were acted upon effectively and issues were resolved. Patients reported that while they were not always comfortable making complaints directly to staff, they knew how to raise concerns and were most likely to do so with the support of an advocate available at the service. Where complaints were made, responses were provided, and actions were taken to address the issues.

Patients and relatives had regular opportunities to provide feedback, including through community meetings, surveys, and suggestions boxes. Staff supported patients and relatives to escalate concerns if needed, following the service’s policy. Leaders ensured complaints were thoroughly investigated, responses were provided to complainants, and learning from complaints informed service improvements.

Since opening in August 2025, the service received two informal complaints and four formal complaints. Key themes included staff competency and gaps in therapeutic support. Complaints were reviewed and responded to in line with the provider’s policy, and actions were implemented to address concerns. Staff received additional training to improve skills and confidence, and learning from complaints was discussed in local clinical governance meetings.

Staff ensured that patients could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff made reasonable adjustments to support individual needs, and the premises were accessible. They identified and met the needs of patients with mobility issues, for example by adapting patient’s ensuite bathroom. Medical cover was available day and night, and a doctor could attend the ward promptly in an emergency. The hospital was within a reasonable distance of the local acute hospital.

Staff planned for discharge effectively, liaising with care managers and community mental health services to support continuity of care. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality and took steps to ensure that no patient was disadvantaged due to wider societal, organisational, or individual factors. Patients had equal access to care, treatment, and support, with legal equality and human rights requirements upheld, including consideration of protected characteristics and the provision of reasonable adjustments.

The provider had policies, equality impact assessments, and staff training in equality, diversity, inclusion, and human rights to support the equitable delivery of care, treatment, and support. Staff were aware of risks of discrimination or disadvantage arising from organisational processes, culture, or individual behaviours, and made reasonable adjustments for patients with additional needs, such as mobility support. Patients with protected characteristics did not express concerns about discrimination within the service and felt that staff treated them equally.

Staff attempted to support patients with protected characteristics through risk assessments, including transgender‑specific risk assessments. However, these were not always fully effective in identifying all associated risks. Staff displayed posters to help patients understand their human rights and what to do if they felt their rights were not being respected.

Staff completed training in the Equality Act and Human Rights legislation and were able to explain how this was applied in practice. Staff and leaders allocated resources to help address inequality. For example, the service had an LGBTQ+ representative who promoted inclusivity and provided a voice for the community. This helped create a safe space for individuals to express their gender and sexual identity and address challenges experienced by LGBTQ+ patients.

Overall, the service demonstrated awareness of, and compliance with, legal and organisational requirements for equity. Patient experiences indicated that most people were able to access and receive care without discrimination.

Patients had the opportunity to express their wishes around DNACPR. Where patients had goals relating to greater independence or reduced care interventions, professionals worked together to support them in achieving these outcomes.

The service did not support any patients who required end-of-life care during our inspection.