Cygnet Hospital Harrow

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 assessed 2 quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement. Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of good practice since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains requires improvement. We found that patients could mostly access care in ways that met their individual needs, preferences and protected equality characteristics. This was reflected in the care and treatment records which showed patient involvement. However, there was no evidence that patient’s relatives or carers were involved in any decisions. The service was still undergoing major refurbishments, including the ward’s sensory room. The implementation of daily rehabilitation and sensory based activities were still in the early stages.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us that the service makes reasonable adjustments for patients where necessary. Staff informed us that the ward tries to ensure the least restrictive practices and processes are followed, to ensure good quality care.

There were positive interactions between staff and patients which was also reflected in the patients’ care plans. Patients’ treatment records were completed accurately, fully reflecting their physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, and patients received care and treatment in line with best practice. We saw that patients’ records, care plans, and risk assessments showed that the people who use the services are involved in their care planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment. However, there was no evidence that the patient’s relatives, carers, or dependants were involved in the planning.

In the previous inspection, the provider had the following breach: The provider must ensure that the wards for autistic people provide an environment that meets their sensory needs. The service had improved, but there were further improvements needed which we raised to the provider as part of the assessment feedback. The provider’s procedure around the sensory room and sensory strategies, was brief. It detailed the purpose of the sensory room, sensory strategies, staff responsibilities and procedures. However, during the on-site assessment, we found the sensory room was being used as a storage room. We raised this with the provider who ensured it was quickly emptied and returned to its original purpose. There was no evidence of individual or group sensory sessions taking place, in the sensory room or in other areas of the hospital. There was no sensory type of activity boxes, detailed on the activity timetable. Furthermore, sensory room training was not listed on the staff training list. However, we are aware that the provider is currently renovating all wards and is still in the improvement phase of its action plan following the last inspection in 2023. Leaders told us they are hoping to bring forward the renovations of the ward, particularly that of the sensory room. The provider has also planned a variety of upskilling days for staff, which include sessions on sensory needs and support.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Patients told us they knew how to give feedback about their care during daily meetings and their ward round. Patients felt confident that if they raise concerns, staff will take them seriously and act on them. However, there was no evidence that the patient’s relatives, carers, or dependants were involved in the planning.

Staff told us that the admission criteria required a review, as they felt some patients were not suitable to this type of ward and its focus on rehabilitation. For example, a very high level of observations and support needs, stopped some patients from engaging in daily activities.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.