Nuffield Health Taunton Hospital

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

We reviewed the governance, management and sustainability quality statement for the well-led key question. There were clear and effective governance, management and accountability arrangements. The systems to manage current and future performance and risks to the quality of the service took a proportionate approach to managing risk that allowed new and innovative ideas to be tested within the service. Staff at all levels were clear about their responsibilities, roles and accountability within the governance framework. The Outstanding rating is inherited from our previous inspection.

This service scored 96 (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.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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.

There was a clear management structure. Leaders operated effective governance processes throughout the service. All levels of governance and management function effectively and interacted with each other. There was a clear performance management reporting structure with regular governance and quality and safety meetings. There were theatre and ward team meetings, heads of department meetings, and quality and governance meetings. We reviewed the minutes of these meetings, they were comprehensive and followed a standard agenda.

Staff understood their role and responsibilities. Managers could account for the actions, behaviours and performance of staff. Surgical risks were reviewed regularly through monthly risk meetings. The service had suitable arrangements for identifying, recording, and mitigating risks to the service. Impact on quality and sustainability was assessed and monitored. The senior management team had a good understanding of these risks, which were regularly discussed, and had action plans to mitigate the risks. One of these risks related to the new electronic record system and senior managers told us about the actions they had taken to mitigate these risks.

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.