- Independent mental health service
Cygnet Elowen Hospital
Assessment report published 26 August 2026
Contents
Ratings - Specialist eating disorder services
Our view of the service
We assessed Nova Ward from the 3 to 12 August 2026. Nova Ward is an eating disorder service registered to support those with low body mass index (BMI).
We assessed the service to review the progress made against the warning notices that were served on the provider following the inspection in February 2026. We assessed 29 quality statements. The remaining 4 quality statements were aggregated from our previous inspection findings. We rated the service as good. The service had made improvements, met the actions of the warning notices and is no longer in breach of regulations.
Improvements in governance, oversight and specialist eating disorder expertise meant that care was now safer on Nova Ward. Increased audits and checks were more effective in identifying concerns and supporting improvements. Patients on Nova Ward were no longer subjected to restrictive practices where staff had not complied with regulatory requirements relating to consent. Staff followed procedures and responded appropriately to identified risks. Care was delivered in line with evidence-based approaches, and training opportunities for staff and the multidisciplinary team had improved. This was reflected in staff’s increased confidence in delivering care.
Patients and relatives told us that staff treated them with kindness, compassion and dignity. Patients and their families were generally positive about the way complaints were handled.
Staff felt empowered to challenge practice and raise concerns. This was evident in the collaborative discussions we observed during ward meetings and other meetings we attended as part of the inspection. Leaders, particularly the newly appointed ward manager, were increasingly visible, supportive and were working to embed a culture of learning and continuous improvement. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities.
There had been significant changes in the service’s leadership, which had had a positive impact on the running of the ward. This was evident through improved oversight and in the feedback from patients and staff. However, these changes were recent and it was too early to determine whether the new governance arrangements were sustainable.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Staff on Nova Waed now understood and upheld patients’ rights under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA). Leaders had strengthened the administration and oversight of MHA processes, and staff completed detention paperwork appropriately and supported patients to understand and exercise their rights. Informal patients were no longer required to request leave in a way that restricted their rights. All staff had received MHA training, and staff followed policies and procedures that reflected current guidance. Patients had access to independent advocacy.
The newly appointed MHA administrator had strengthened oversight of MHA-related paperwork and processes. We identified a small number of minor administrative errors in the paperwork we reviewed, but staff identified and addressed these promptly. Leaders had also strengthened audits and oversight of MHA compliance following our inspection findings and feedback.
Staff had improved how they assessed and recorded capacity, and they documented best interest decisions more consistently. These decisions increasingly reflected patients’ wishes, culture and personal history.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 7 patients and 4 of their relatives on Nova Ward.
People gave positive feedback about many aspects of their care and treatment. Patients described staff as kind, compassionate, approachable, respectful and caring. Patients told us they had good relationships with the staff who cared for them and the leaders they interacted with. We observed staff interactions with patients during informal conversations on the ward, ward rounds and meetings. Staff were respectful, attentive and responsive to patients’ views. During ward rounds, we saw patients confidently challenge staff when they disagreed with decisions, and staff listened to and responded respectfully to their wishes and requests. Patients also spoke positively about the therapeutic activities available to them, which provided meaningful engagement and supported their wellbeing. Relatives gave positive feedback about communication and the care provided.
However, the independent advocacy service that works in the partnership with the hospital shared additional feedback from patients which identified concerns about staffing levels, mealtime supervision and continuity of care. Some patients had also raised concerns about the interactions of some staff, care plan involvement and the inconsistency of mealtime and post-meal support. We considered this feedback alongside the evidence we gathered during our inspection.