Wimbledon Beaumont

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

The provider gathered the views of staff via team meetings, supervision, surveys and a speaking up champion. Staff felt supported and confident in sharing their opinions and providing feedback. The service did not have a registered manager in post, but the manager was in the process of registering with CQC. The provider undertook a range of audits to establish and improve the quality of care people received. We identified that these were not always effective. For example, inaccurate information in one person’s care records related to a healthcare need and one person’s pressure mattress was set to in accurate setting. In both instances the provider addressed the shortfalls promptly. The leadership of the service was well supported by the provider organisation and plans for continuous improvements were in place.

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 Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff told us they enjoyed their work and felt supported by the management team. The provider told us there was an open culture in which the views of staff were welcome. Staff we spoke with confirmed this.

Staff participated in regular team meetings and the records of these were maintained for future reference. The service had a whistleblowing policy with which staff were familiar, and a speak up champion with whom staff could share any concerns regarding people’s safety or welfare.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider monitored the quality of care at the service and had a range of quality audits in place. However, we found that these were not always sufficiently robust. For example, audits of care records did not identify inaccurate information regarding the support of one person’s pressure care, which the provider resolved quickly after we told them. Similarly, one person’s pressure relieving mattress was set to an inaccurate weight. Whilst the provider addressed this immediately there wasn’t a daily check for this important piece of equipment. We found audits were in place to monitor areas including care and support, clinical needs, health and safety, people’s nutrition and infection prevention and control. This meant checks of quality led to improvements in care.

The service did not have a registered manager in post. However, the current manager, who was a registered nurse, was in the process of registering with (the) CQC. Staff expressed confidence in the manager and the manager felt well supported in both their role and career development by the provider.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.