Cygnet Lodge Salford

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Good. At this inspection the rating has remained Good.

Good: This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

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 discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We conducted a Short Observation Framework for Inspection 2 (SOFI2) observation in the service, which is a structured observation which captures people’s experience of care. Our observations showed that staff were responsive to patient's needs, providing the requested support and were friendly towards patients.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Record showed and people told us that patients chaired their review meetings, choosing which order the feedback was given in. Records showed patients were involved in the creation of their care plans and risk assessments.

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. Patients told us they were supported to access the local community, for example to go to the cinema. We observed at the handover meeting, staff were familiar with patients' needs and presentations and acknowledged when there were changes observed.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences. Staff told us the culture of the service had changed since the last inspection in 2025, they felt listened to and concerns were acted upon.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. Staff had individual log ins and passwords to access the computers and electronic care records. The patient information board in the nurses office was not visible from the door. This meant confidentiality was not breached.

We treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

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 premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs. The service had ground level access and a lift within the building. The lift was new since the last inspection which meant it was less likely to require repair.

Staff had developed communication systems for patients who found it difficult to communicate their feelings and understand written communication. We saw easy read minutes from the community meetings, visual day planners, and a traffic light mood communication system, where patients placed a coloured symbol on their door to reflect how they were feeling and the support they required.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. The service provided a welcome pack on admission, this included information about the service, expectations and how to complain.

The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group. Staff had developed symbols to enable patients to communicate where they were experiencing pain. We saw individually developed sensory strategies for patients who required grounding techniques.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients. The service sourced information as needed by patients. For example, the service had provided a Qur’an in a patients first language of Lithuanian.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers. There was an out of hours telephone interpreting service for staff to use and a planned face to face interpreting service too.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. There was mixed feedback about the food, out of 5 patients asked about the food, 3 said it was nice, they were eating better and the service accommodated their dietary requirements. Two patients did not like the food and found it repetitive.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. There was a multi faith room within the service with a variety of religious scriptures and texts for patients to use. The direction of Mecca was also indicated to enable patients of Muslim faith to pray. However, feedback from stakeholders was that the service was experiencing challenges accessing a chaplaincy service. None of the patients we spoke with raised this as a concern.

We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We saw information within the service about the psychology groups on offer, the advocacy service and the timetable for activities. Patients enjoyed the activities including the psychology group, walking group, cooking and the salon.

Connections had been made with the local community and patients participated in volunteering in the local community, including a canal clean.

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. Patients told us the advocate supported them in their ward rounds.

We listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

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 were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care planned for these accordingly. We observed that staff shared changes in presentation and risks with colleagues in the handover meetings, these included referrals to the GP for physical health needs.

Records showed that there were care plans for patients in relation to physical health, asthma, diabetes and self care skills.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. This included assessments for aids and adaptations to meet patients mobility needs. Records showed actions for staff to ensure patients were safe during the heatwave, including drinking fluids, keeping cool and the service had purchased fans.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. One of the staff team had been trained to be a physical intervention trainer. They led on scenarios for staff to practice how to respond in situations to diffuse a situation, this included de-escalation techniques. They were also able to facilitate debriefs, review the incident and identify what could be done differently in future.

We care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff, and we support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

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 told us there had been an improvement in the culture of the service since the last inspection. Staff felt able to share their views and opinions and told us they were listened to and their views were 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 hospital manager and consultant had also been offering drop in sessions for staff.

The provider recognised staff success within the service. Compliments were discussed at team meetings.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. We saw staff had progressed within the service, for example from nurse to senior nurse to clinical lead.