Cygnet Newham House

We rated this service as good because:

• The service provided safe care. The hospital environment was safe and clean. The hospital had enough nurses and doctors. Staff assessed and managed risk well. They minimised the use of restrictive practices and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients and in line with national guidance about best practice. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
• The staff teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients in the hospital. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with those outside the hospital who would have a role in providing aftercare.
• Staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively involved patients and families and carers in care decisions.
• Staff planned and managed discharge well and liaised well with services that would provide aftercare. As a result, discharge was rarely delayed for other than a clinical reason.
• The service was well-led and the governance processes ensured that procedures ran smoothly.

However:

• Not all staff had up to date appraisals in place in line with the providers policy.
• Staff had not clearly recorded details of one-to-one sessions between the patient and their named nurse.
• Staff had not updated all patient’s medicine cards to reflect their current status (e.g. detention, informal of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard).
• Staff did not ensure capacity assessments to treatment, for patients who were informal or on a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard, contained the proposed treatment they were assessed for.
• Staff did not ensure capacity to treatment assessments for patients were easily available in the prescription folder.
• Staff had not reported all non-patient incidents such as administration issues which may affect the effective running of the hospital.