Cygnet Newham House

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At our last assessment we rated responsive as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. The design, layout, and furnishings supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at making sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We saw evidence in care records that staff developed care plans aligned with patients’ needs to promote independence, including considerations such as personal care, leave planning, family support and facilitating home visits for patients who had been placed out of their home area.

Patients could personalise their bedrooms. Patients had lockers in which to securely store their possessions.

Staff empowered patients to make their own decisions about their care and treatment. There were community meetings during which, patients had the opportunity to give feedback about activities, food, what was working well and what could be improved. Staff acted upon feedback from patients. For example, staff had discussed patients’ feedback about the food choices being repetitive and as a result, the menu was changed so patients had more variety.

Care was coordinated across internal teams and external partners, including advocacy services and the local carers hub, ensuring families received timely support and clear signposting. Staff identified and addressed risks to continuity, such as language barriers and the needs of carers, and actively supported carers to access appropriate help. The inclusive culture, accessible information, and integrated working environment supported relationship‑based, person‑centred care and reduced the risk of fragmented support.

An expert by experience visited the service in June 2025 and their report made reference to the service being welcoming, clean and vibrant and demonstrating a strong commitment to person‑centred care. The environment was clean, well maintained and inviting, with colourful displays, patient artwork and clear evidence of a wide range of meaningful activities taking place throughout the service. Staff were said to be approachable, caring and attentive, making both visitors and patients feel welcomed and valued. Patients were encouraged to express choice and individuality through a clear “what do YOU want to do” culture. Patients who were new to the service had been successfully integrated and spoke positively about their progress, while food provision was described as good quality with a varied menu. The service benefitted from strong leadership and a dedicated activities co‑ordinator. Overall, the service was assessed as safe, effective, caring, responsive and well‑led, with a lively, supportive atmosphere that clearly promotes wellbeing and positive outcomes for patients.

A carers event was held at the service in July 2025 with a focus on equality for carers.

Multidisciplinary meetings brought together chefs, nurses, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and physiotherapy staff to review patients’ mealtime experiences, dietary requirements and preferences. This ensured risks were shared, actions coordinated and care delivered consistently across shifts and roles.

The service responded to patient feedback to improve continuity and choice around meals. Patients were involved in menu planning through community meetings and direct engagement, which led to improvements such as daily salad bar options, expanded vegetarian choices, and the introduction of homemade soups. Patients were supported to express preferences daily for meals, supported by visual aids and accessible formats, helping ensure care responded to changing needs and reduced the risk of fragmented provision.

Continuity of care was supported through clear processes and shared documentation. Daily monitoring of food and fluid intake, allergy information, IDDSI compliance and fortified diets was overseen through structured audits and action logs. Responsibilities were clearly allocated, and findings were reviewed regularly to maintain safe, consistent nutrition support, particularly for patients with complex needs or swallowing difficulties.

The service worked proactively to adapt provision where risks or inequities were identified. For example, fortified diets were introduced for a patient struggling to eat full meals, with daily monitoring and weekly management oversight to ensure continuity and effectiveness. Adjustments were also made for cultural, sensory and communication needs, including the use of talking tiles and exploration of sensory dining approaches.

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

Staff had involved patients in developing and improving access to therapeutic activities. This resulted in the creation of individualised 7‑day therapy timetables which included 150 minutes of physical activity.

Staff had taken feedback on board from patients about the repetition of meal planners and liaised with catering staff to address this.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Patients had access to mobile devices and could use telephones within the service to contact their loved ones.

We saw evidence in care records that staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community. Patients also had access to a chaplaincy service and a multi-faith room onsite. The service had developed a service level agreement with a local mental health trust in relation to the provision of a chaplaincy service to support patients’ spiritual support.

Staff had set up a clothing storage so that patients could access additional clothing when they needed it. The clothes were donated from staff and charitable organisations. Patients had been encouraged to help set up and maintain this facility to help aid their recovery and learn new skills to support their discharge.

In September 2024, the service hosted a Hawaiian-themed carers day to strengthen relationships with carers and promote a positive and inclusive environment. Carers were joined by staff, patients and a representative from the organisation and local carers support group. Feedback from attendees indicated that the event was enjoyable and helped foster a sense of community and appreciation for carers.

Patients had access to a local gymnasium and swimming pool within the community. The service encouraged vocational occupation and worked with the local dog trust to enable patients to go on walks with dogs.

Patients and staff had participated in fundraising events for Red Nose Day and MacMillan Nurses.

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.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. We reviewed incidents that had happened within the service and saw evidence that safeguarding referrals had been sent to the local authority and statutory notifications had been sent to the Care Quality Commission when required.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. The information provided was in a form accessible to the particular patient group. Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress.

The service was involved in contract meetings with integrated care boards to ensure appropriateness of services and provided them with contractual reports.

Reports following external quality assurance and commissioner reviews evidenced that the service provided accurate, transparent and person‑centred information, supporting safe, high‑quality care. Records clearly reflected multidisciplinary clinical decision‑making, with effective information sharing between professionals and robust documentation of physical health, risk management and patient progress.

Information systems were assessed as being robust, accessible and well‑governed, with appropriate use of secure systems. Patients were supported to understand and engage with their care, including participation in multidisciplinary team meetings and access to advocacy and service information. Commissioners highlighted open and timely communication, clear contextual reporting and responsive leadership, particularly in safeguarding matters.

Only minor and clearly defined documentation improvements were identified, including the inconsistency of physical health baselines, completion of multidisciplinary records, workforce reporting clarity and strengthening discharge‑focussed summaries. No concerns were raised regarding transparency, information governance, incident reporting or complaints.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

In the 12 months prior to the assessment, there had been 3 informal complaints and 1 formal complaint within the service. The formal complaint which centred around a family member’s concerns about their loved one’s weight and food intake was partially upheld as it was found the patient’s diet and fluids had not been regularly reviewed. None of these complaints were referred to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman.

Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns. When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback.

Patients who raised concerns or complaints were protected from discrimination and harassment. The provider had a central complaints team who ensured that any formal complaints were reviewed effectively and in a timely manner. The complaints team oversaw the responses and ensured that there was no discrimination.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately and received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings. For example, during the investigation of the formal complaint, it was identified that nurses were not always reviewing food and fluid charts. The process was changed to incorporate a daily documentation pack which was reviewed and uploaded each day. Following this process change, identified issues with documentation were addressed, with audits completed in January and February confirming that the new system was fully implemented. Staff received training in International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation (IDDSI), and catering staff were trained to ensure food was accurately prepared, nutritionally appropriate and presented in an appealing way for people on modified diets.

People using the service were regularly involved in reviewing meaningful activities through weekly community meetings and local clinical governance forums. Feedback from a patient led to the development of a sensory garden. The garden was developed in co‑production with patients. It was designed to be wheelchair accessible and personalised through patient involvement in planting and decorating.

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 when they needed it.

Staff ensured the needs of patients with mobility issues were met. The areas of the building used by patients were wheelchair accessible and the building was single storey.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients. Staff could arrange for signers, interpreters or for information to be provided in a variety of formats to support people with communication issues, as well as referring patients to the service’s onsite speech and language therapist. Staff had also given patients walking aids and shower seats to meet their mobility needs. Staff adapted times for food, drink, medication and other aspects of care to enable Muslim patients following Ramadan to engage in fasting.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the service was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local accident and emergency service.

We saw evidence in care records that staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers/co-ordinators.

In the last 12 months, there were no delayed discharges within the service. The service held fortnightly meetings with the organisation’s corporate team to review all patients’ pathways and discharge plans to ensure discharges were not unnecessarily delayed.

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.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

In the last 12 months, staff had not needed to support patients to make advanced decisions about their care and treatment.

Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs.

Managers planned for the future in terms of succession planning of staff. Staff could undertake leadership apprenticeships. Staff were undertaking apprenticeships in human resources, catering, administration and support worker roles. Two staff members were completing the registered nurse pathway. Senior leaders attended national groups such as ward manager and clinical manager forums to provide succession planning and support

Succession planning was part of the provider’s quarterly nurse associate programme. The provider’s human resources team was responsible for talent management within the service. Supervision sessions included discussion around goals to increase skills and experience. Managers enabled staff to attend external courses such as maths and English to progress to a national vocational qualification.