Cygnet Hospital Hexham

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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. Staff understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately where consent to do this had been obtained.

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 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.

People using the service consistently reported that staff were kind, caring and respectful. During our inspection we spoke with 7 patients and 3 carers. Patients and carers described staff as supportive, attentive and compassionate. Staff offered reassurance during distress and took time to build positive therapeutic relationships. Staff were responsive to patient’s individual needs, preferences, dietary requirements and emotional support needs.

Privacy and dignity were generally well maintained. One patient told us staff did not always knock when entering their room. We shared this feedback with the registered manager who took prompt action to communicate with the patient and address the concerns. Carers said staff helped their loved ones feel safe and understood, and that they themselves were kept informed and involved in care planning through regular updates and meeting invitations.

Patients reported they felt listened to and involved in decisions about their care. The service demonstrated a commitment to promoting dignity through sensitive communication, personalised care and supportive interactions.

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.

Staff demonstrated a commitment to treating people as individuals. Feedback from patients and carers, alongside evidence from assessments, care plans and Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework (PCREF) activity, showed staff understood and responded to people’s unique needs, preferences and backgrounds.

Care plans were personalised, regularly reviewed and written in people’s own words. However, we saw some documents where staff used terms such as “firm boundaries”. We raised this with the registered manager, who told us they would address the use of appropriate language with staff. Patients said staff explained information clearly, involved them in risk assessments and supported them to identify their recovery goals. Carers told us their feedback was sought and used appropriately. Records showed people were offered copies of their care plans. Carers felt respected, informed and included in decisions when consent was in place. They received regular updates and were invited to ward rounds. Staff also reduced barriers to involvement, including arranging and funding transport so a carer could visit their relative.

Patient’s communication needs were met. Staff adapted communication styles, routines and emotional support to each person. Patients felt listened to and said staff took time to understand their preferences, including how they wished to be approached during periods of distress. Staff adjusted care based on each patient’s personal history and safety needs.

Dietary needs were met. Activities were varied and tailored, with staff adopting patient suggestions and using activities to support emotional regulation and wellbeing.

Patients described staff as kind and respectful. Staff apologised when things went wrong and followed up concerns appropriately. People said they felt safe and able to raise issues, and staff supported them sensitively during difficult moments.

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.

Staff consistently demonstrated kindness, compassion and empathy in their interactions with people using the service. They responded sensitively to individual needs and circumstances, offering reassurance and adapting their approach during periods of ill‑health or distress. Records showed that staff recognised when people were upset and took appropriate steps to provide comfort and ensure they felt supported. Patients and their families told us they were able to speak with staff; however, some said they occasionally had to wait for support at times when staff were busy.

People had access to independent advocacy when required. Advocates attended the ward in person, and staff used a range of communication methods to ensure information was accessible, including online translation services to provide written materials in different languages.

A varied programme of meaningful activities was available, and patients spoke positively about the activity coordinator and the range of opportunities offered. Occupational and physical therapists worked directly with patients on the wards, assessing individual needs and supporting engagement in therapeutic and rehabilitative activities.

Care plans reflected people’s choices and preferences, enabling activities and interventions to be planned in a person‑centred way.

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.

While we did identify that some risks were not always adequately assessed staff did recognised specific risks such as falls, choking and self‑harm, and planned care accordingly. Risk assessments were completed and reviewed regularly, supported by physical health monitoring, observations and meetings. Care plans reflected up‑to‑date risks and included actions for staff to follow.

Staff escalated concerns when they noticed changes in behaviour or health. Observation levels, risk plans and clinical input were adjusted when this was required. In a multidisciplinary meeting we attended, we observed a patient was able to share their views and was involved in decisions about their support.

Staff used de‑escalation to reduce the need for restrictive interventions. Care plans contained information about personalised strategies such as verbal reassurance, sensory approaches and distraction techniques. Restraint was used as a last resort when all other attempts at de-escalation had failed.

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 deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued. This was reflected in consistently positive feedback from patients and carers, who described staff as kind, compassionate and responsive. Staff reported strong teamwork and supportive leadership, with regular opportunities for debriefs, reflective practice and wellbeing support.

Staff felt proud to work for the provider. This was reflected in the 2025 staff survey results which showed an 88% engagement score, strong confidence in managers (90%) and high team‑respect scores (88%). Staff also identified pressures relating to pay, staffing and breaks, which were included in an action plan.

Staff had access to occupational health and emotional wellbeing support, including psychological input, post‑incident debriefs and structured supervision

Sickness levels were low at 2%, and staff turnover remained stable and similar to organisational averages.

The service routinely recognised staff contributions, sharing compliments and positive feedback and embedding recognition into reflective sessions and improvement plans.