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 assessment we rated responsive as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. 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. 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 this quality statement 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 we spoke with felt involved in their care, they informed us they would attend their multidisciplinary team meetings. Carers and family members were also able to attend multidisciplinary team meetings alongside or on behalf of the patient (in person or via video link). Families felt informed about their loved one's progress.

Patients were involved in a wide range of activities and improvement projects. The hospital had just started a patient created newsletter. This included tips from patients, feedback and questions, a patient led staff user interview, upcoming hospital events and more. This was due to be distributed among patients and staff.

We observed several meetings including the daily multidisciplinary meeting. They were well structured, comprehensive, holistic and personalised. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of individual patients’ history, presentation, strengths and goals. They were able to give examples of how they delivered personalised care and how they considered patients’ needs, wishes, goals and preferences. Patients and family members views were sought. Written care plans were personalised and individual and clearly highlighted patient voice and patient choices about the care they receive.

We scored this quality statement 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.

Staff made sure patients had access to opportunities for education and work, and supported patients to access these. The hospital created opportunities for patients to access paid work. For example, the hospital had a patient run café,

Staff encouraged patients to develop and maintain relationships both in the service and the wider community. Staff helped patients to stay in contact with families and carers. Patients could make phone calls in private. Patients had access to their own mobile phones or the ward phone. Patients also had access to computers in the “chill out zone”.

Staff supported, informed and involved families or carers. Staff gave carers information on how to find the carer’s assessment.

We scored this quality statement 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.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers.

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

We scored this quality statement 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.

We reviewed 10 complaints that the hospital had received between March 2025 and May 2025. All complaints were investigated appropriately and learning was identified from all complaints. Of the 10 complaints, 2 were upheld, 4 were partially upheld and 4 were withdrawn.

Patients, relatives and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns. The service clearly displayed information about how to raise a concern in patient areas. Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them. Staff protected patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment.

Staff knew how to acknowledge complaints and patients received feedback from managers after the investigation into their complaint.

Managers shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service.

The service used compliments to learn, celebrate success and improve the quality of care.

We scored this quality statement 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.

Referral, assessment and admission processes considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and the service made reasonable adjustments to avoid discrimination and meet need. Staff we spoke with were able to give examples of where adjustments had been made or were in place to support patients with mobility and physical health concerns. The hospital had a lift which meant all floors were accessible. Each level of the hospital was step free.

Kingwood ward had 3 pathways operating at the time of the assessment. The service had clear exclusion criteria to ensure they could safely support the needs of the patients. Staff told us that they would not accept referrals where patients’ needs could not be met by the ward and its staff.

Staff planned and managed patient discharge well. Staff did not move or discharge patients at night or very early in the morning. The ward worked well with services providing aftercare and managed patients’ move out of hospital. As a result, patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. Staff involved all the necessary healthcare and social care services to ensure patients had continuity of safe care, both within the service and post-discharge. Staff had strong links with community mental health teams, referring organisations and local integrated care bodies, who they could liaise with to provide care for their patients.

Managers regularly reviewed length of stay for patients to ensure they did not stay longer than they needed to. Kingswood ward had no patients experiencing delayed discharge at the time of the assessment. Managers monitored the number of patients whose discharge was delayed, knew which wards had the most delays, and took action to reduce them. The ward had an average length of stay of 8.7 months which is within the national guidance for rehabilitation wards. The service had support from the hospital manager, responsible clinician, business relationship manager and local business relationship managers to ensure that patients received the right care and treatment and moved on to services that could support them.

The service had low numbers of out-of-area placements. Kingswood had 6 patients who were out of area. These patients came from neighbouring counties. The service engaged well with patients’ local teams and actively involved them in patients’ care. The patients’ local care providers were invited to ward rounds, care planning approach meetings, discharge meetings and more.

Managers and staff told us they were working hard to build a culture to prevent discrimination and inequalities. This was supported by training and guidance. In meetings we observed, we saw staff talking about these topics.

We scored this quality statement 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.

Staff completed equality and diversity training as part of their mandatory training programme. They were aware of the resources available to them to support patients during their care and treatment, including translation services and religious and spiritual support. The hospital had a multi faith room.

Managers we spoke with told us patient experience and outcome was considered when reviewing incidents involving patients, for example, the use of restraint, seclusion and rapid tranquilisation.

We scored this quality statement 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.

Patients we spoke with were involved in discussions about their future and discharge planning.

Staff regularly reviewed the long-term plans for patients in terms of their treatment goals and objectives for discharge or the transfer of care to a different service, where appropriate.

There were processes in place to facilitate the planning and delivery of discharge or transfer of care and staff worked well with other professionals to ensure patients could access the services and support they needed.