Cygnet Newham House

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good.

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

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They 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.

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.

During our inspection, we observed how staff were interacting with patients. Staff attitudes and behaviours showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

We spoke with 3 patients and 2 carers during our inspection. Other patients using the service declined to speak with us. We attempted to contact a further 2 carers but did not receive any comments. Staff were described as kind and supportive.

Patients said they had regular one-to-one time with their named nurse. Patients felt there were enough staff though occasionally, the service was understaffed due to unexpected absences. Patients said there were enough activities which they enjoyed and staff gave them advice on healthy lifestyles. Patients liked the food provided by the service. One patient said staff were always willing to help and support patients. Patients felt involved in decisions about their care planning and that staff supported their wellbeing. One patient told us the hoist used by staff to move them was not working. However, no reports of a broken hoist had been reported or sent to repair and the service had multiple hoists in situ to ensure patients could always be moved when required.

Both carers we spoke with expressed a high level of satisfaction with the service.
They described staff as caring; the environment was safe, there was strong therapeutic input, and that staff involved them in their loved one’s care and treatment. The main improvements they felt were needed related to communication being more consistent, ensuring all staff follow individual care needs, and progressing nutrition input for patients with complex needs. The carers said complaints and concerns were listened to and acted upon promptly and staff raised safeguarding alerts when appropriate.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. We saw evidence in care records that staff had supported patients to access appointments with GPs, podiatrists and dentists.

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.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. All staff were required to complete information governance training which was centred around ensuring patient information was stored securely and in line with the General Data Protection Regulation.

Staff had involved patients in the hosting of multiculture days. For example, the service held an African day during which staff and patients dressed in traditional African attire and cooked African meals.

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, areas of the building used by patients were wheelchair accessible and the building was single storey. Staff met patients’ specific communication needs.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on.

The service provided information in forms that were accessible to the particular patient group (for example, in easy-read form).

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers. Staff ensured an interpreter was booked for patients who needed one at least once a week and that an interpreter was on site for patients’ ward rounds, care programme approach meetings and any physical or mental health appointments.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. There was a multi-faith room onsite and staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The
service was exceptional at promoting people’s independence, so people knew their
rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff ensured patients had access to independent advocacy support.

Staff used various tools and methods to communicate with patients on the wards. Information could be provided in easy read for patients with a learning disability. Online translation services could be used to produce information in different languages.

Staff gave patients access to activities, such as board games, quizzes, music events, horse therapy, visiting a local reptile shop, swimming and, visits to train museums and seaside resorts. Patients could attend the service’s breakfast club. To support patients with their life skills, staff enabled patients to shop for food of their choice and cook it themselves, or with the support of staff where needed.

Care records evidenced staff provided both group and individualised activities for patients.

Patients care plans included the patient's choices and preferences, allowing for activities to be arranged accordingly.

The service promoted independence through access to a range of adaptive equipment and facilities. Patients were supported to maintain and improve mobility using an onsite gymnasium with exercise bikes and walking machines, as well as specialist mobility aids including gait trainers, standing aids and transfer equipment. Independence with daily activities was further supported through the use of modified crockery, cutlery and cups. Patients also accessed a local hydrotherapy pool to support mobility and rehabilitation. For those with reduced mobility, an adapted bathroom with a ceiling hoist enabled safe access to bathing while maintaining dignity and choice.

The activities of daily living kitchen within the service had lowered workbenches and a hob to support wheelchair users to participate in baking and cooking activities.

There were tilting kettles within the service to enable patients were unable to lift a kettle to make hot drinks independently. Staff within the service had reviewed walking aids to ensure they were suitable for patients who were unable to weight bare to enable them to be able to walk independently.

Plans were in place for the bungalows within the service to be adapted and make them more accessible, including adapting the laundry room so patients could access the laundry independently. A bath was installed in the main building with a ceiling hoist in place to ensure that all patients could access a bath when they wanted one.

Patients were assessed by the occupational therapist prior to admission and any necessary equipment to meet the patient’s needs was purchased for them to use. Patients had been assessed for individual walkers, moving aids, profiling beds, shower chairs and raised tables.

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.

We saw evidence in care records that staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls and care planned for these accordingly. Positive behaviour support plans and formulations were used within the service to ensure that all staff were aware of patients’ risks.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. There was a sensory room within the service which was used to calm patients when their behaviours became heightened. There was also a PAT bag which was used to safely manage patients who were distressed, agitated or required physical restraint. A PAT bag, also known as a safety pod or pod chair, is a large bean bag designed for use in mental health services.

Speech and language therapists within the service had developed visual care plans to enable staff to safely manage patients. Visual care plans are tailored, image-driven documents used in healthcare to improve communication, safety, and staff efficiency, particularly for patients in long-term care. They summarise complex, multi-page, written care plans into easy-to-read, visual formats. These plans often combine photos, icons, and concise text for quick referencing.

Staff liaised with the service’s occupational therapist to ensure that as much of the equipment needed to assist patients was as accessible as possible.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They felt positive and proud about working for the provider and within their team.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. This included:

• support from the onsite psychology team
• managers referring staff members to occupational health when needed
• an employee assistance programme
• health benefits from an external provider
• support from an onsite mental health first aider
• access to support for staff experiencing trauma
• the provision of flu vaccines to all staff members
• staff wellbeing days, which included physical health checks by the physical health nurse such as electrocardiograms, physiological observations, smoking cessation advice, and weight management guidance
• physiotherapy support for specific health issues.

The service’s staff sickness and absence were similar to the average for the provider.

The provider recognised staff success within the service. There was a ‘moment of thanks’ board where staff could post ‘thank you’ messages to their colleagues. Managers encouraged staff to post anonymous notes to recognise everyday acts of kindness, support, and teamwork. Managers nominated staff members for Characters of Care awards across the organisation. Recipients received a gift card in recognition of their contribution. Staff were also recognised for their work and successes in team meetings.

The provider had a ‘star of the month’ awards which were given to staff for being approachable and supportive.

Staff had access to reflective practice meetings during which they discussed their experiences, relationships with colleagues and patients and how they were feeling.

Two staff members within the service were completing the registered nurse pathway and others were undertaking apprenticeships in human resources.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.

Managers within the service monitored staff morale. This was done by monitoring the results of staff surveys, regional quality audits and, attitudes and behaviours in staff meetings. Managers also operated an open-door policy, so staff felt able to speak with them when they needed to share information or concerns.

The 2025 staff survey for the service identified notable improvements in staff engagement, wellbeing, leadership and organisational culture. Psychological safety and organisational culture continued to improve, with strong perceptions that people working within the organisation were fair, caring, and valued learning.

However, the survey also identified ongoing pressures, particularly regarding pay satisfaction, breaks, workload‑related stress, and staff sickness. Team cohesion showed some areas of decline from the previous year, including reduced perceptions of respect and belonging within teams. Despite this, staff continued to describe their work as rewarding and identified colleagues, managers, and organisational culture as key reasons for remaining with the organisation.

Instances of bullying, harassment and abuse towards staff were most commonly linked to patients or the public, with verbal and physical abuse being the most frequent forms reported. Reporting rates were relatively strong, with 65% stating they or a colleague reported the most recent incident. Experiences of discrimination were low but were most commonly linked to race when they did occur.

Communication across the organisation had improved, with staff feeling increasingly informed about updates both at organisational and service level. The weekly email newsletter and manager/team meetings were the most common communication channels.

Following the staff survey, leaders within the service developed an action plan. They reviewed staff retention rates by completing exit interviews with leavers to identify any changes which could be made to improve quality with employment and provided kindness and inclusion training to staff. Staff attended staff representative group meetings to discuss any concerns which they felt unable to raise with the service leaders. The provider’s human resources team held drop-in clinics within the service for staff to speak to them in person. Two percent of staff said they felt sexually harassed in the service, so staff were provided with 'not on my watch' e-learning and the freedom to speak up lead ran regular sessions within the service to encourage staff to speak up. Leaders reviewed the nightshift times for the service as it was previously 13 hour which the nightshift staff felt was too long. Following a consultation exercise, the working time for nightshift workers was reduced to 12.5 hours.