Wimbledon Beaumont

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 30 May 2024 (assessment visit 28 February 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   GGood Good

   People were protected form the risk of avoidable harm and the provider took the necessary steps to ensure people were kept safe.

   People’s risks were assessed, and staff had guidance in care records on meeting people’s individual care and support needs safely.

   There were enough care staff available to provide care and support to people. However, there were not always enough nurses available to ensure the timely administration of medicines. The provider had identified this shortfall and had taken action. This included redeploying a nurse from another service and starting to recruit additional nurses.

   People’s medicines were stored and recorded correctly. Medicines were administered by nurses who had their competences regularly evaluated and regular medicines audits were carried out

2. Effective

   GGood Good

   People’s needs were assessed and met. The service supported people’s access to healthcare services when required and staff followed the guidance of healthcare professionals.

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   Staff ensured that people had choices and decided how they received their care and support. People were supported to maintain their independence and their dignity was promoted.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   The provider was responsive to people’s complaints and people knew how to raise concerns if they had any. People’s views were gathered through a range of forums including residents’ meetings and surveys and the provider acted on these.

5. Well-led

   GGood Good

   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.