Cygnet Hospital Maidstone

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

We reviewed all 5 quality statements in the caring key question. 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 as Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed and is now rated as Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

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.

We scored the service as 3. 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 attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were approachable, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We observed positive and engaging interactions between staff and patients, such as when playing pool together and during an art therapy group. Patients approached us to feedback positive comments on the staff. We spoke with an advocate who spoke positively of their interactions with staff.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

The service made adjustments for disabled patients. For example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to the premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, and how to complain.

The information provided was in a form the patient group could understand, for example in an easy-read format. However, we noted that the blanket restrictions log that was displayed was difficult to read due to the small text size and was not in an accessible format, such as using pictures.

Patients had a choice of food to meet their dietary needs. For example, the hospital could cater for different religious and ethnic groups, and for allergies, intolerances and vegetarian diets

Patients were able to personalise their bedrooms and bring in personal possessions.

The service promoted people’s independence, so they knew their rights and had choice and control, where possible, over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Patients told us they knew their rights. Patients had access to advocacy and knew how to do so. The advocate was present on the ward on the day of our assessment.

The ward held regular community patient meetings, which had a structured agenda and was well-attended. The meeting gave patient’s opportunity to feedback on their care, the ward and receive updates from key staff such as the ward manager, hospital leaders, and catering. Minutes reflected that actions were taken between meetings.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff took action to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. For example, a patient approached the team office, and the doctor responded promptly as they knew he was waiting for updated information and would become frustrated quickly if the update was not relayed in a timely way.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, and care planned for these accordingly. We saw examples of falls risk assessments and dietary assessments within patient records.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Staff were trained in reducing restrictive interventions.

We scored the service as 3. 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 person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued.

Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.

The service’s staff sickness and absence rates were low. The sickness rate for the hospital was 2.9% in May 2025.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.

Staff told us they took regular breaks.