Wimbledon Beaumont

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

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

This service scored 62 (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 Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff received regular safeguarding training and knew the actions they should take if they had any concerns about people’s well-being.

People and their relatives told us the service was safe and people were protected from harm. One person said, “[The staff} are my family, and they really care about all of us.” Another person said, "[Staff] are really good here. I have never had an issue.” A relative told us, “If I felt my [family member] was not safe here, they wouldn't be here. They are fantastic here.”

The provider had safeguarding procedures in place which staff understood. The service had a learning culture which involved reviewing incidents and sharing lessons learned throughout the staff team.

People and their relatives felt that risks were identified and managed. The involvement of people in their risk assessments was reflected in care records.

Staff and leaders understood people’s individual risks. Referrals were made to ensure people’s changing needs were met.

We observed people being supported in line with their risk assessments. For example, we saw people supported to eat meals presented in the consistency prescribed to prevent choking.

People were supported with a range of risk assessments which covered all aspects of their care and support. However, we identified an instance in which one person’s care records had not been appropriately reviewed. This resulted in contradictory information in care records detailing how their pressure area care should be managed. The provider updated this information after we brought it to their attention.

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

People we spoke with told us that staff were friendly, competent and available to meet their needs.

The staff we spoke with were enthusiastic and motivated. Staff enjoyed their roles and felt well supported. Leaders were involved in recruiting to ensure there were sufficient number of care staff and nurses at all times.

People received care and support from staff who had been recruited safely. Staff received training and supervision to provide safe and effective care and support.

We observed there were enough care staff deployed throughout the day to support people effectively. This included support with personal care and activities.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they received the medicines they were prescribed and consented to their administration.

Medicines were stored and recorded appropriately, and protocols were in place for ‘when required’ medicines. However, only one nurse was deployed to administer medicines at the time of our assessment. This delayed the time at which some people received their medicines. The nurse mitigated some of the risks by prioritising the order in which medicines were administered.

Nurses were trained and qualified. The provider carried out regular medicines’ competency assessments and audited medicines practices at the service.