Cygnet Storthfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

The service were involved in quality improvement projects within Cygnet. Leaders told us they shared best practice and any updates in legislation with staff through supervisions, and focused sessions with nurses and support workers. Staff attended regular supervision, appraisals and local/regional team meetings where innovation and good practice was shared along with any changes to national and organisational guidance. The service used a recognised treatment model and care plans and risk assessments were developed and reviewed regularly with a full multi-disciplinary team.

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.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Patients told us they were involved in activities and support staff were helping them in a positive way. We observed patients completing therapeutic jobs for which they gained an income from. Patients told us had access to a kitchen and laundry facilities. A patient told us that they really enjoyed the opportunity to go out and buy food to cook in the kitchen once a week. We were told that a patient is supported to be able to cook for other patients and staff as they used to cook for their family.

Staff said patients had input into their care plan with all information updated regularly with the patient. They told us they used national and organisational monitoring tools to maintain and improve the health, well-being and safety of the patients. Staff attended regular supervision, appraisals and local/regional team meetings where innovation and good practice was shared along with any changes to national and organisational guidance. They completed training which was relevant to their role and attended further refresher training sessions on a yearly basis or sooner according to guidance. Leaders told us that they were involved in quality improvement projects within Cygnet. They also had internal quality improvement projects specific to the service. They shared best practice and any updates in legislation with staff through supervisions, and focused sessions with nurses and support workers.

We found evidence within care plans that patients were involved in activities that supported their treatment. Extensive risk assessments were in place around a range of activities. However, these risk assessments were not personalised considering individual patient risks. This was raised to management and was being actioned. Care plans showed that patients were able to access therapeutic jobs, occupational therapists, psychology, doctors and a variety of meaningful activities. Discharge planning included multi-disciplinary team involvement including therapists, doctors, nurses, support workers, independent advocates, and the patient. There was a service wide therapy plan in place to ensure all patients received regular one to one time with a psychologist. Patients had wellness recovery action plans in place that had been developed with patients and a multi-disciplinary team, which considered how the patient responded depending on how they were feeling. The service used a recognised treatment model of cognitive behavioural therapy, which is a recognised by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.