Cygnet Hospital Maidstone

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

We reviewed all 7 quality statements in the responsive key question. This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment the rating has remained as Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were not moved between wards 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 outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. 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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 regularly met with patients to understand their views on care and treatment. These discussions took place in one-to-one meetings with nurses and in ward round. Staff monitored patients’ conditions and discussed any changes at handover meetings.

The service provided therapeutic and recreational activities to meet the needs and personal interests of patients. Staff on both wards displayed therapeutic timetables for patients to access information about appropriate therapeutic activities. Staff supported patients to co-produce weekly activity forms during community meetings. For example, patients said they had participated in art, food preparation sessions, played games and watched films.

Patients had access to psychology input either in groups or 1-1 sessions. Psychology groups were based around cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and supported patients with emotional management and coping strategies.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

This service admitted patients for relatively short periods of time. The purpose of the service was to stabilise patients experiencing an acute episode of mental illness.

When appropriate, staff ensured that patients had access to education and work opportunities.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. All patients we spoke to told us they were supported to maintain contact with the people who were important to them. Staff told us they were able to support visits from children in an area away from the ward environment.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with people in their local area. Staff ensured family members and care co-ordinators were invited to attend ward rounds. The service facilitated attendance by video link if people were unable to attend the hospital in person.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. The service submitted notifications to the Care Quality Commission in accordance with the requirements of their registration. The service also submitted safeguarding referrals to the local authority.

Leaders had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care. This information was presented and discussed in clinical governance meetings.

Staff ensured patients could access information on treatment and local services. Staff explained that information about their treatment was provided for patients if it was needed. Staff displayed information about safeguarding, infection control, the Mental Health Act and the independent mental health advocacy service.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy 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.

Patients and staff participated in regular weekly community meetings on both Roseacre and Bearstead wards. The patients and staff we spoke to told us that community meetings were useful and meaningful. The meetings allowed an open culture on the wards where both patients and staff could raise issues, discuss actions taken and suggest solutions.

Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. Patients said if they wanted to make a complaint, they would speak with nursing staff, their doctor or the ward manager in the first instance. Patients we spoke with said they had access to an independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA).

The service clearly displayed information about how to raise a concern in patient areas. For example, both wards had boards where information about how to complain, how to contact IMHA, safeguarding, CQC, were displayed. The board also had patient survey data for Jan-April 2025 displayed with feedback and actions. We saw ‘You said, we did’ boards on both Roseacre and Bearsted Wards. Staff understood the policy, processes and importance of raising complaints, feedback, and supported patients, relatives and carers to raise concerns and to understand the processes.

Any themes from the complaints? Comment on any themes and trends identified by the provider from investigating complaints and what was done to address them.

The managers investigated complaints and patients received feedback after the investigation into their complaint. Leaders shared learning from complaints with all staff.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service had adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to 2 local acute hospitals. The ward had a speciality doctor based on each ward. A consultant psychiatrist worked three and half days a week and a consultant provided cover in-between the days. A doctor who had access to emergency radio was available and able to reach the ward within 5 minutes to attend to emergencies.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care, including section 117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services. Staff planned for patients’ discharge, which included good liaison with care co-ordinators. For example, social workers discussed discharge plans with patients as soon as they were admitted onto the wards. Mangers held discussions with Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) and commissioners to plan discharge, plan an estimated discharge target date and plan a transition.

Discharge was rarely delayed for other than clinical reasons. Staff told us occasionally discharge could be delayed where there had been extenuating circumstances with external agencies, such as funding disagreements or issues with patients being accepted by housing providers. At the time of the inspection, there were no delayed discharges on Roseacre ward. However, there were four delayed discharges on Bearsted ward which the manager informed us they were working tirelessly with the social workers and community mental health teams to support the discharge of the patients.

The service was accessible to all patients including those with restricted mobility and wheelchair users.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. The service admitted patients from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds. Staff asked patients about their religious and cultural needs when they were admitted to the ward. The service provided culturally appropriate food. For example, one patient told us patients had access to halal food when they requested it.

The service employed staff from diverse backgrounds. This meant the service was able to utilise the ability of staff to speak to patients in their first language whenever this was possible.

All staff were trained in diversity and inclusion.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. For example, about medicines they took and other treatment options.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.