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. Staff managed beds well. 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

Patients, carers and staff fed back positively on how the service promoted person-centred care. Staff we spoke with described how they encouraged patients to be involved in their care and treatment. Patients had named nurses who met with them at least once a week.

The service used ‘activity PRNs’, which were individual activities patients could do with staff to reduce anxiety and agitation. Patients were encouraged to engage in these activities, and this had reduced the need to use medication to manage anxiety and agitation.

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.

When appropriate, staff ensured that patients had access to education and work opportunities. Patients were offered paid employment within the service, such as working as a gardener.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community.

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. Senior leaders were aware of what statutory notifications were required to be sent to the Care Quality Commission.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Patient records were electronic and required a log in and password to access.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. There were posters and leaflets available.

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.

The ward had received four complaints between March and June 2025, with three being withdrawn and one being partially upheld. The complaints had been investigated appropriately.

Themes and trends identified by the service were discussed in the hospital wide situation report meeting, as well as ward-level team meetings.

Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns. When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately.

Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings.

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 ward accepted patients from across the country.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care. For example, Section 117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care co-ordinators, community forensic liaison teams, the provider collaborative and the Ministry of Justice.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met. For example, wheelchair users had access to lifts.

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. As well as regular community patient meetings, the service also had a ‘People’s Council’, which included patients from each ward to discuss and feedback on issues that were hospital-wide.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff completed training around promoting human rights and equality and diversity.

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 supporting people to find onward placement 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.