- Independent mental health service
Cygnet Lodge Salford
Assessment report published 22 October 2026
Contents
Ratings - Long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults
Our view of the service
We rated this service as Good.
Bank and agency staff were receiving an induction to the service and records confirmed this. Staff were receiving appropriate support and guidance in their role, including supervision and training.
Medicines were stored safely, records were complete and contemporaneous. Risk assessments were updated following incidents. Risks were shared within the team, including at handovers. Staff were following the uniform policy and were bare below the elbow.
Furniture and décor had been updated to a high standard following our last inspection and patients were involved in the decision making of these changes. The lift was working and the ligature risk assessment reflected risks within the hospital environment.
Staff told us of the changes in the culture since the last inspection, they felt valued, supported and listened to.
However, we identified a breach of Regulation 18 Staffing in relation to staff not being provided with tier 2 autism and learning disability training and staff not conducting enhanced observations within the best practice guidance recommendations. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.
Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act Compliance Summary
Staff received training in the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act. Compliance for the service was 95% for Mental Capacity Act and 98% for Mental Health Act.
There were policies and procedures in place for both the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act. Staff we spoke with understood their role in relation to the legislation.
Medicines administration records were clearly completed and where needed the appropriate Mental Health Act authorities for prescribing were in place.
Records evidenced examples of capacity assessments completed for decisions including treatment for physical health conditions.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 6 patients, 5 carers and received feedback from 5 stakeholders.
Feedback from Patients
We spoke with 6 patients.
Five out of 6 patients were very positive about the service, one patient said “it’s the best hospital I’ve been too, its lovely, staff are lovely.”
Patients told us staff were approachable, friendly and respectful.
Patients enjoyed the activities including the psychology group, walking group, cooking and the salon.
Patients told us the service was clean and they could personalise their rooms.
Patients knew how to complain and felt confident in doing this.
Patients felt involved in their care, including at reviews and in planning for section 17 leave and their discharge plans. Patients had access to advocacy.
There was mixed feedback about the food, out of 5 patients asked about the food, 3 said it was nice and they were eating better and the service accommodated their dietary requirements. Two patients did not like the food and found it repetitive.
Patients said the television in the lounge was not working and that staff had reported it but it had not been resolved.
A patient said an area of support that could be enhanced was support to develop skills in bus travel, including understanding bus routes.
Feedback from Carers
We spoke with 5 carers.
Carers told us they felt involved in their loved one's care and the service was responsive to their contribution and that they felt listened to by the staff. Carers were able to visit their loved one and when making arrangements to do this, staff were accommodating to their needs and circumstances.
Three out of 4 carers we asked knew how to complain.
Carers valued the opportunity to join ward rounds and reviews remotely due to the distance they lived from the service. However, 2 carers told us there had been challenges with the remote meetings, in relation to being able to join and hear effectively and felt face to face meetings would have been more effective.
A carer had said there had been a high turnover of staff, which made it difficult for continuity of care.
Feedback from Stakeholders
We received feedback from 5 stakeholders.
Stakeholders told us the service was responsive to their requests. The service proactively engaged with external organisations. Stakeholders told us the service was open and transparent.
Stakeholders told us that patients spoke positively about members of staff, occupational therapy provision, advocacy support, and the input received through multidisciplinary reviews.
Stakeholders told us how the service incorporated the model of care into reviews for patients to help them understand their progress and areas to continue to work on for their recovery.
The service has demonstrated improvement, and stakeholders told us their review showed the improvements embedded into routine practice. They felt the service was willing to act on feedback to improve patient experience and quality of care.
However, stakeholders told us that the service had accepted admissions in the past for patients they were unable to meet the needs of. Stakeholders questioned the services review of historical information for patients being referred prior to deciding to accept the referral.
Stakeholders told us the service could improve its links with the Integrated Care Boards and enhance their understanding of the commissioning structure to support both parties.