Cygnet Hospital Hexham

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service ensured that patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and decisions were made in partnership with them in response to any changes in their needs.

The service took a patient‑centred approach, making sure patients remained central to all decisions about their care and treatment. Care plans were personalised, written in accessible language and shared with people. Staff considered each patient’s preferences, including how they wished to be supported during periods of distress, and adapted their approach based on personal histories and what each patient found most helpful.

Patients were actively involved in decisions about their care. They took part in ward rounds, contributed to risk assessments and reported feeling listened to by staff. Carers told us they were included when consent allowed and were kept updated on progress. Patients consistently described feeling respected and able to raise concerns or ask questions.

Staff worked alongside patients to respond to changes in their needs. Activities were flexible and tailored, with patients able to suggest new options that staff put in place. Staff recognised when patients required additional support and responded appropriately. Patients told us staff knew them well and understood what helped keep them safe.

Information was accessible, and staff promoted patients’ rights, including rights under the MHA. Advocacy was used effectively, helping patients understand their options and build confidence in expressing their views. Feedback from patients and carers was encouraged and used to inform improvements.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard of care. 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.

Patients had daily access to a wide range of therapeutic and recreational activities, including sports, crafts, group discussions, and community‑based sessions. These opportunities helped reduce isolation, supported emotional wellbeing, and promoted confidence and the development of life skills.

Family involvement was consistently supported. Carers were updated through weekly phone calls, invited to ward rounds, and provided with welcome packs and information about the ward. Where carers were unable to attend in person, staff made adjustments so they could join meetings remotely using technology. Staff were described as responsive, kind, and proactive. In some instances, staff arranged transport to enable visiting, helping patients maintain important relationships. Patients confirmed that, with their consent, families were included in discussions and decision‑making.

Patients’ spiritual needs were assessed and supported. Multi‑faith spaces were available, and staff facilitated access to chaplaincy or community worship when patients wished to engage. Some patients chose not to access spiritual support, and staff respected these preferences.

We scored the service as 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.

The service had effective arrangements to ensure patients and their families received clear, timely and accurate information. Staff understood their responsibilities for confidentiality and information sharing and followed established data‑protection policies.

Patients and carers told us they were given the information they needed to understand patients’ rights, treatment and what to expect. Welcome packs, ward information, advocacy details and complaints processes were consistently provided. Detained patients had their rights explained regularly, with records confirming this.

Information was available in accessible formats. Staff used easy‑read materials, pictorial aids, social stories and simplified explanations for patients with communication needs. Interpreting and translation services were available and used when required.

Carers reported good communication, including regular updates, involvement in ward rounds and opportunities to provide feedback.

Across the service, staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients understand discussions and decisions. Patients reported that staff took time to explain care in a way that made sense to them.

We scored the service as 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.

The service had effective systems to listen to patients and to respond to any concerns or complaints. Patients told us they knew how to raise concerns. Information about complaints was clearly displayed, and advocacy support was available.

In 2025, the hospital received 27 complaints. Of these, 2 were withdrawn, 3 could not be investigated due to no patient consent, 5 were partially upheld, 13 were not upheld, and 4 were upheld. No complaints were referred to the Ombudsman in the last 12 months. Concerns raised by patients were taken seriously. Staff investigated complaints, provided feedback, and made changes where required.

Learning from complaints was shared through team meetings, supervision and reflective practice. The service promoted feedback through advocacy reports, surveys and community meetings. Feedback led to improvements, including environmental upgrades that had begun before our inspection.

We scored the service as 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.

Patients were able to access the care, treatment and support they required. Patients told us staff considered their preferences and adapted support to meet their individual needs.

Discharge planning was timely and collaborative. Staff worked with community mental health teams, local authorities and advocacy services to support safe transitions and to help patients understand their rights. Evidence showed patients received appropriate advocacy support ahead of any discharge. There had been no delayed discharges in the past 12 months.

Clinical support was accessible. Adequate medical cover was available 24 hours a day. Documentation showed prompt responses to both physical and mental health concerns, regular MDT input and clear escalation pathways.

We scored the service as 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.

Patients had multiple opportunities to give feedback through community meetings, advocates, surveys, and involvement in ward rounds. Patients told us they felt listened to, and staff encouraged them to take part in decisions about their care.

Policies and monitoring systems supported equality and helped identify where patients with protected characteristics might be at risk of poorer experiences. Staff received training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. Training helped staff understand the diverse needs of patients.

We scored the service as 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, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. Patients were routinely involved in ward rounds and reviews, where staff explained options clearly and encouraged them to express their preferences about future care. Advocacy was used effectively to support decision‑making, and families were involved with the patient’s consent.

Care plans were personalised and reflected each patient’s individual needs, wishes and feelings. Where patients were unable to engage, staff recorded best‑interest decisions appropriately.

Staff communicated sensitively during difficult or distressing discussions. We observed caring interactions, with staff providing reassurance and clear information.

The approach to planning for patients with complex needs was multidisciplinary. Meetings included a full range of professionals and involved external agencies when necessary. Carers were invited to contribute with patient consent, ensuring that decisions were holistic and tailored to the individual.