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 people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Staff managed beds well. Patients were not moved between wards or hospitals except for their benefit. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities. The service met the needs of all patients, including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff placed patients at the centre of their care and treatment and considered their individual needs, preferences, strengths and goals. Care plans improved and reflected patients’ physical, mental, emotional and social needs and provided a framework for personalised support.

Staff involved patients in discussions about their care and treatment, including during ward rounds. Patients were able to express their views and, during our observations, some confidently challenged staff when they disagreed with decisions. Staff listened and responded respectfully. Staff also supported patients to make choices about their daily routines, activities, treatment and leave.

Staff adapted care to individual needs. For example, meal support was tailored to patients’ nutritional needs and treatment plans, while occupational therapy and activities provided opportunities to develop independence and wellbeing. Staff used individual physical health monitoring, including MUST and NEWS2, to identify and respond to changes in patients’ needs.

Patients spoke positively about the improvements in person-centred care, although some told us that their experience could vary depending on which staff were supporting them. This was particularly noticeable when bank and agency staff were working, as they were not always as familiar with patients’ individual needs and preferences.

Leaders had improved its approach to person-centred care. One relative told us, “There’s still a way to go, but things have definitely improved since my daughter was admitted. Things are heading in the right direction.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff had a good understanding of the diverse health and care needs of the patients they supported and worked to provide coordinated and flexible care. Staff considered patients’ individual health, social and wellbeing needs when planning care and worked with patients to support continuity and choice.

There was effective joint working across internal teams and with external partners, including Integrated Care Boards (ICBs), the East Midlands Provider Collaborative and the local authority safeguarding team. Regular multidisciplinary team meetings and effective handovers supported the sharing of information and helped ensure care and treatment remained consistent across teams. Staff also worked with community and specialist services when planning referrals, transitions and discharge.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers and, where appropriate, access the community. Staff also supported patients to engage in meaningful activities.

The service had strengthened its multidisciplinary team since the hospital opened, including access to specialist eating disorder expertise. This improved the range of professional input available to patients and supported more coordinated care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff provided patients and, where appropriate, their families and carers with information about care and treatment and generally considered individual communication needs and preferences. Information was available in accessible formats, including easy-read and translated information where required, and staff could access interpreting and advocacy services to support effective communication.

Feedback about communication with families and carers was mixed. One patient told us, “Staff contact my parents at least once a month to give them updates, and more often if they need to.” However, other feedback highlighted difficulties contacting the service, with one person telling us, “We can never get through, there is no signal in the unit – landline, no one answers.” Another said, “Sometimes you get through to reception and then they say call back at 6pm.” This indicated that, while systems were in place to provide information, families and carers did not always find it easy to contact the service and obtain information when they needed it.

Staff maintained information governance systems and understood their responsibilities around confidentiality and information sharing. Patients could access information about their treatment, rights and how to raise concerns. Staff also made required notifications to external bodies and shared relevant information with professionals involved in patients’ care.

The service made it accessible for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had systems in place for patients to provide feedback, raise concerns and make complaints. Patients knew how to complain and staff were able to describe the complaints process and their responsibilities when concerns were raised. There had been 6 complaints since the last inspection.

Complaints we reviewed since the last inspection covered a range of issues, with some recurring themes relating to communication, discharge planning, aftercare and patient involvement. Some patients reported feeling that their views had not always been fully heard or that they had not received sufficient information about arrangements following discharge. These complaints provided useful information about patients’ experiences and areas where the service could improve.

Leaders reviewed complaints and identified themes and learning from concerns raised. Staff received feedback about complaints and were expected to act on findings and improvements identified through investigations. Patients were also involved in discussions about their care and had opportunities to provide feedback through ward meetings, reviews and other engagement opportunities.

While complaints identified some areas where communication and involvement could be strengthened, leaders demonstrated a willingness to listen to feedback and use it to inform improvements.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.