Cygnet Nield 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

We reviewed all 7 quality statements in the responsive key question. This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

Patients had access to information about their care and treatment that could be provided in a format suitable to them. Patients were aware of how to complain and told us they would be confident that any complaint they raised would be managed appropriately.

We observed care being provided in a person-centred way. This was visible in the patient and staff interactions we witnessed and the care and treatment we saw being delivered. The multidisciplinary patient reviews we attended were holistic, personalised and included patient involvement.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patients we spoke with felt involved in their care, they informed us they would attend their multidisciplinary team meetings. Carers and family members were also able to attend multidisciplinary team reviews alongside or on behalf of the patient.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of individual patients. They were able to give examples of how they delivered personalised care and how they considered patients individual needs, goals and preferences.

We attended a multidisciplinary patient review meeting, the meeting was well structured and included patients and family members where they wanted to be involved. The reviews were comprehensive, holistic and personalised. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of individual patients’ history, presentation, strengths and goals.

Policies and procedures were in place to protect and promote equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

We did not ask patient specific questions about care provision, integration and continuity. However, no concerns were raised in this regard.

Staff were able to explain the process and pathways for admissions, transfers of care and discharges.

The local host commissioners requested feedback from commissioners for each patient on the ward, in order to any identify any themes and trends, or areas of positive or concerning practice. The hospital managers and local host commissioners met every 3 months, and reviewed information submitted by the managers. No issues were raised about this quality statement.

The service had block booked beds and worked closely with the organisations who commissioned and purchased them. There were systems and pathways in place to ensure continuity of care including guidance on planning and facilitating discharge or transfer of care.

Patients we spoke with told us they had access to the information they needed. They told us that if required they would also ask staff.

Staff could provide relevant information to patients and were able to provide that information in different formats dependent on need and preference. The service had access to translation services and provided information leaflets in languages spoken by the patient and local communities. Managers made sure staff and patients could access interpreters and signers where required.

Referral and admission documentation captured patient communication needs. The provider had contracts in place with a translation service to provide document, phone and face to face translation.

Patients we spoke with felt involved in decisions on the ward. They attended weekly community meetings where they were able to give feedback and make suggestions.

Patients knew how to complain if they needed to and were able to give feedback on the service in patient surveys. Carers we spoke with also knew how to complain and stated they would do so without fear of discrimination.

Staff we spoke with understood the provider’s complaints policy. They were able to explain the complaints process and how they would support patients who wished to raise a concern. However, staff informed us that they do not receive feedback from complaints. The hospital manager told us that individual performance would be raised in supervision.

We reviewed 3 complaints that had been investigated by the service. Although the hospital’s policy and procedures had been followed we found that the feedback to the complainants was vague and did not provide specific outcomes.

There was a complaints policy and process in place. Managers and senior staff had been trained to complete complaint investigations when this was required. Complaints were monitored at a hospital and provider level to identify themes and trends and monitor responses.

We did not ask patients specific questions around equity of access. However, no concerns were raised regarding the referral and admission process or any discriminatory behaviour.

Staff were aware of the reasonable adjustments they could make and how to source additional specialist advice or equipment when required.

The local host commissioners requested feedback from commissioners for each patient on the ward, in order to any identify any themes and trends, or areas of positive or concerning practice. The hospital managers and local host commissioners met every 3 months, and reviewed information submitted by the managers. No issues were raised about this quality statement.

Beds in the service were block booked by commissioning organisations. Referrals into the service were made by those organisations and the service was not a frontline service. Referrals and transfers into the service were managed in a timely manner and promoted continuity of care.

Referral, assessment and admission processes considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and the service made reasonable adjustments to avoid discrimination and meet need. The service had specific exclusion criteria to ensure they could provide the correct care and treatment to patients.

Staff had access to interpretation services and were able to produce information in different formats, for example easy read.

Staff completed equality and diversity training as part of their mandatory training programme. At the time of our assessment compliance with the training was 97%.

We did not ask patients specific questions around equity of experience or outcome. However, none of the patients we spoke with raised concerns about discriminatory behaviour by the staff or the service and we saw no evidence of concerns. Patients we spoke with generally felt involved in their care and treatment.

Staff were able to give examples of where adjustments had been made or were in place to support patients with mobility concerns. Staff supported patients with religious or spiritual needs including supporting access to places of worship and offering cultural and religious specific foods.

Beds in the service were block booked by commissioning organisations. Referrals into the service were made by those organisations and the service was not a frontline service. Referrals and transfers into the service were managed in a timely manner and promoted continuity of care.

Referral, assessment and admission processes considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and the service made reasonable adjustments to avoid discrimination and meet need. The service had specific exclusion criteria to ensure they could provide the correct care and treatment to patients.

Staff had access to interpretation services and were able to produce information in different formats, for example easy read.

Staff completed equality and diversity training as part of their mandatory training programme. At the time of our assessment compliance with the training was 97%.

We did not ask patients specific questions in relation to planning for the future. However, patients we spoke with did not raise any concerns in this regard.

We spoke with multiple patients who were involved in their discharge planning.

We did not ask staff specific questions about planning for the future. Staff were able to discuss long term plans for patients in terms of treatment goals and objectives for discharge or the transfer of care to a different service.

There were processes in place to facilitate the planning and delivery of discharge or transfer of care.