Archived: High Gable House

Updated 12 February 2015

We undertook an unannounced inspection to High Gable House on 18 July 2014. The inspection was carried out by an inspector and a specialist advisor who was a nurse with knowledge of learning disabilities.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included information sent to us by the provider before our visit about the service, the staff and the people who use the service. The provider also completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the visit, we spoke with four people using the service, three care staff and the registered manager. We spent time observing care and support in communal areas. We also looked at a sample of five care records of people who used the service, five staff records and records related to the management of the service. We spoke with the local safeguarding team and a General Practitioner to obtain their views of service delivery.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

Updated 12 February 2015

We carried out this inspection under section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looked at the overall quality of the service.

We undertook an unannounced inspection to High Gable House on 18 July 2014. High Gable House is a care home registered for a maximum of nine adults who have learning disabilities. The home consists of two separate houses.

At our last inspection on 25 February 2013 the service met the regulations inspected.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post since December 2013. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Safeguarding adults from abuse procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Managers and staff had received training on safeguarding adults, the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff said they had considered people's needs in regard to this legislation, and were liaising with the local authority to establish if people needed to be assessed.

People received individualised support that met their needs. The service had systems in place to ensure that people were protected from risks associated with their support, and care was planned and delivered in ways that enhanced people’s safety and welfare according to their needs and preferences.

People were involved in decisions about their care and how their needs would be met. People were supported to eat and drink according to their individual preferences. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required to meet people’s needs.

People told us they were happy with the care provided. Staff were appropriately trained and skilled to care for people. They understood their roles and responsibilities as well as the values and philosophy of the home. Staff received supervision and an annual performance review. They confirmed they were supported by the manager and received advice where required.

The management team was accessible and approachable. People who used the service and staff felt able to speak with the manager and provided feedback on the service. Monthly audits were carried out across various aspects of the service, these included the administration of medication, care planning and training and development. Where these audits identified that improvements were needed action had been taken to improve the service for people.