Chippenham Hospital

Updated 8 July 2026

We inspected Chippenham Hospital (Cedar and Mulberry Wards) on 17 and 18 March 2026.

Chippenham Hospital was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 4 April 2025 as a provider of treatment of disease, disorder or injury and diagnostic and screening procedures.

This is the first inspection of this service since registration. The service previously operated under a different provider. We assessed this service due to the length of time since registration.

At this fully comprehensive assessment, we assessed one assessment service group; community health inpatient services, where we assessed all quality statements.

Community health inpatient services are provided to adults on inpatient wards run by services of community health services.

Chippenham Hospital is a community hospital in North West Wiltshire. It is situated on its own site in a residential part of the town. Chippenham hospital has level and easy access to the site with parking for patients, visitors and staff.

The inspection team consisted of two CQC inspectors, 1 Specialist Advisor and 1 Expert by Experience. This was an announced inspection, which means the service was told about the assessment beforehand.

We reviewed patients’ care and treatment records. We attended multidisciplinary team (MDT) referral meetings and nurse handovers.

Services are provided by HCRG Care Services Limited on behalf of the Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire (BSW) Integrated Care Board. The service works in partnership with the third sector and other partners.

We assessed the following community inpatient wards.

• Cedar Ward is a 17-bed unit focusing on general rehabilitation.
• Mulberry Ward is a 20-bed unit focusing on stroke and neurological rehabilitation.

We visited both wards and spoke to staff about patients' care and treatment.

This report presents our findings across this service, informed by the evidence collected at the time of the assessment.

In our assessment, we found there was a good safety culture where events were investigated, and learning was embedded to promote good practice. Staff provided safe care and treatment, and the environment was safe and well-maintained.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. Patients described staff as respectful and supportive, and said the service had a positive impact on their lives.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. Staff provided care and treatment in line with current guidance. They treated patients with dignity and respect and ensured access to care, support, and treatment when required.

The service had effective systems to identify and manage risks. Infection control procedures in place were effective.

Technology-driven innovations were utilised to strengthen safer recruitment practices.

Governance systems reflected the service’s quality improvement approach.

However, there were some areas where improvements were needed. For example, the service did not always ensure staff training was completed in line with policy. The service needed to continue to improve communication with staff as part of the recent service transformation.

At this assessment, we assessed 1 assessment service group: community health inpatient services.

We assessed all quality statements.

Our rating of the service at this assessment was good.

Updated 11 February 2026

Date of Assessment: 17 to 18 March 2026.

This assessment focused solely on two inpatient rehabilitation wards located at Chippenham Hospital, which together offer 37 inpatient beds.

Our assessment was a comprehensive inspection of all key questions.

Our assessment was announced (staff knew we were coming) to ensure everyone we needed to speak with was available. This was the first time we had assessed this service since it was taken over by HCRG Care Services Ltd in April 2025. During our assessment, we visited both wards and spoke with 18 staff, including doctors, nurses, therapists, domestic staff and managers and reviewed 13 patient records.

Mental Capacity Act Compliance

Staff could describe and knew how to get accurate advice on the Mental Capacity Act and this formed part of their mandatory training. At the time of our assessment, staff for both wards had completed 93% of their Mental Capacity Act training (against the services own compliance rate of 85%).

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, in particular the five statutory principles. Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions.

For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture and history. 

The service had arrangements to monitor adherence to the Mental Capacity Act.