Cygnet Grange

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 patients and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection and assessment, the rating remained as good. Patients’ individual needs and preferences were understood. Patients were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. Patients’ needs, views, wishes and comfort were a priority for staff.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff treated patients with kindness, respect and compassion. During the inspection, we observed positive interactions where staff demonstrated a good understanding of patients’ individual needs, including their communication styles, preferences and emotional needs. Staff took a patient and considerate approach, allowing time to explain what they were doing and checking that patients understood.

Feedback from carers reflected this, with many describing staff as kind, compassionate and respectful, and saying patients were consistently treated with dignity.

Staff respected patients’ privacy and dignity. We observed staff interacting in a sensitive and discreet way, ensuring personal information was handled appropriately and patients were supported in a manner that maintained their dignity.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients’ individual needs and preferences were understood and reflected in their care, treatment and support. Staff told us they worked closely with families to build a full understanding of patients’ preferences, wishes, personal histories and backgrounds. They recognised that this information was important in delivering personalised and compassionate care.

We reviewed 3 care records and found that care plans reflected what mattered to each patient. This included their daily routines, cultural needs and preferred ways of receiving support. During the inspection, we observed staff offering reassurance to patients in communal areas. Staff were caring, kind, and knowledgeable in their interactions.

We observed that staff worked effectively as a team, demonstrating good rapport with patients and consistently positive, respectful interactions. Staff prioritised patient safety and communicated in ways that were tailored to patients’ individual needs and levels of understanding.

We saw staff using meaningful activities to support patients who appeared anxious. For example, staff engaged patients in activities such as playing pool in the communal area, adapting their approach in a calm, sensitive, and responsive manner to reduce distress and promote emotional wellbeing.

A therapy timetable was clearly displayed in the communal area in an easy-read format, offering a wide range of structured activities. We also saw evidence of regular group activities, including weekday community trips such as bowling and cinema visits, supported through use of the service’s minibus.

These observations demonstrated that staff used engagement, therapeutic activities, and personalised approaches effectively to support patients’ wellbeing, reduce distress, and promote positive outcomes.

Families spoke positively about the relationships between staff and patients. They described these as trusting and said staff knew patients well, including their history, preferences and behaviours.

Patients’ communication needs were considered and supported to help them engage in their care and improve their experience and outcomes. Staff spoke positively about the people they supported and showed a good understanding of their preferences, histories and communication styles.

Occupational therapy staff worked with families to support more personalised care planning, ensuring it was informed by patients’ individual histories, preferences and communication needs.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted patients’ independence, so patients knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. They had access to friends and family, and the service encouraged regular contact.

The provider told us that family involvement was promoted from the point of pre-admission. This included sharing information and inviting families to contribute to risk assessments, helping to ensure care was informed by those who knew the patient best. Families were able to visit their loved ones at any time, which supported ongoing relationships and helped maintain important support networks.

Patients had access to activities and the local community to promote and support their independence, health and wellbeing. Staff displayed activity timetables with structured activities available seven days a week. Each patient had an activity profile stored in the activity’s cupboard, providing staff with personalised guidance on preferred activities. The hospital had its own minibus, enabling staff to take patients on outings such as trips to the seaside, local pubs and local parks to feed the ducks. The ward had a pool table, a basketball courtyard and a polytunnel in the garden.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood patients’ needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to patients’ needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Patients’ needs, views, wishes and comfort were a priority and staff quickly anticipated these to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress. Although patients were not always able to tell us themselves, our observations and the care records showed that staff responded quickly and effectively when individuals were in pain, discomfort, or distress. Carers described staff as respectful and sensitive, particularly when supporting patients with personal care or when they were distressed.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver patient-centred care.

Staff wellbeing was supported, which helped ensure patients received safe, effective and person-centred care. The nurse in charge planned staff breaks at the start of each shift, and staff had access to regular debriefs. Healthcare assistants (HCAs) told us they felt well supported by the nurse in charge during their shifts.

Staff said they felt valued by both their leaders and colleagues. The provider told us they recognised staff contributions in a number of ways, including monthly peer-nominated awards, a staff appreciation station, birthday bags and appreciation days.

This showed the service placed importance on staff wellbeing and recognition, which supported a positive working environment and helped staff deliver good quality care.