Cygnet Hospital Maidstone

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We reviewed all 7 quality statements in the well-led key question. This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. 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 the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Governance processes operated effectively. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected analysed data about outcomes and performance. They used this to identify improvements.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team.

The provider’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for their service, especially where the service was changing.

Staff could explain how they were working to deliver high quality care within the budgets available.

Staff we spoke with were very positive about the ward, senior leaders and the provider. Staff described a positive culture within their own team and across the wider service. They were proud of their work. They felt well supported and felt they offered good care to patients as a result.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. They could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide high quality care. Hospital leaders were knowledgeable about the ward and individual patients, demonstrating they had a good understanding of the services they managed.

Leaders were visible in the service and approachable for patients and staff. Staff at all levels were familiar with the hospital leaders, as well as their own senior managers from the ward.

Leadership development opportunities were available, including opportunities for staff.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service created a positive culture where people felt that they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

Staff said they knew how to raise a concern and would feel comfortable to do so. They were aware of the service’s whistleblowing policy.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Staff could apply for flexible working agreements to support them with their personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues. Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role.

Staff who had experienced racial abuse were encouraged to report these internally and to the police. Staff felt supported by managers following these incidents.

There were equality and diversity networks within the service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

We observed the hospital-wide situation report (SitRep) meeting, which was professional, clear and comprehensive. We reviewed examples of governance and staff meeting minutes. There was a clear framework of what must be included at ward and service level meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed.

Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams, both within the provider and external, to meet the needs of the patients.

The service used systems to collect data from wards that were not over-burdensome for frontline staff. A clinical audit dashboard had been implemented since the last inspection, and each ward was reviewed monthly by the hospital’s quality team. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results when needed.

Ward managers and leaders had access to the risk register at ward and hospital level. Staff concerns matched those that were on the risk register.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. The information technology infrastructure, including the telephone system, worked well and helped to improve the quality of care.

Team managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Leaders engaged with external stakeholders such as commissioners and external partners. Staff maintained relationships with the local authority and police liaison. Managers said they had good working relationships with these services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The ward participated in accreditation schemes relevant to the service. The ward was undergoing accreditation with The Quality Network for Forensic Mental Health Services (QNFMHS) from the Royal College of Psychiatry at the time of the assessment.

The hospital published a patient safety bulletin every month which covered audit results, risks, improvements and good practice.