The Gables Care Home

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

Well-Led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. We identified a breach in regulation in good governance. The governance systems in place were not always robust in ensuring actions were taken to address the shortfalls we identified. This placed people at risk of harm and not having their needs met because appropriate checks were not completed.

This service scored 54 (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.

The provider sought feedback from staff on members of the management team. This showed positive feedback about the manager’s approach and support to people who used the service. On the whole, we received positive feedback from staff in relation to the management of the home. The registered manager told us how they were eager to keep on learning and developing their own skills as well as promoting staff’s future development.

The registered manager had been in post since 2017 and was also the business owner. For a variety of reasons, the registered manager told us they had not been on site as often as they would have wishes. The registered manager had the help of a consultant for a period of time to support the service. This however, ceased around 6 months prior to our assessment. From the findings of the assessment, it was clear some standards and procedures within the home had declined and the registered manager was keen to bring the service back up to standard. Since the on site visit to the service, the registered manager had bought the consultant back on board to support the service and drive key improvement.

Staff we spoke with felt able to raise any concerns with the registered manager or the management team. One staff member told us, “I feel able to raise concerns. There are very good at listening”.

The provider actively promoted staff to raise any concerns. The provider held regular meetings with staff, giving them the opportunity to raise any issues. Staff were given supervisions frequently, should they not feel able to speak up within a group setting.

Staff were encouraged and supported to develop. Staff were supported to gain additional qualifications through their employment which may lead to a promotion within their role. One staff member told us how they were enjoying learning their level 3 qualification and putting this into practice.

The provider made reasonable adjustments to enable staff to carry out their role. The provider’s policies promoted equality and diversity. This showed the provider was committed to equal opportunities in employment.

The management team were engaging throughout the assessment process. They acknowledged where improvements were needed at the service, including better governance systems.

The provider’s systems in place to ensure good governance of the care provided for people were not effective in identifying the concerns found during our assessment in relation to medicines management, care planning, auditing systems, staffing levels and staff files.

People and their relative’s told us involvement within the community could be improved. Although not all people expressed they had this interest. One person told us how they were able to go to the shops or pub independently, but they had to have staff to allow them access to the doors, as these were locked. The provider had not put measures in place to ensure this person had free access to leave when they chose to. This was addressed with the registered manager at the time of the assessment for immediate action, to ensure the provider was not unlawfully restricting this person’s freedom of movement.

Staff and the management team told us how they work closely with professionals to ensure people received consistent care and support. They told of us of the different activities they brought into the home to give a community feel and they acknowledged more work was needed to ensure people had more regular outings. The provider was going to put plans in place to explore this further. For example, having a home minibus to arrange trips to the seaside.

We asked for feedback from partners during the assessment process. We were told of a number of safety concerns which were referred to the safeguarding team. Partners told us how the provider was conducting an internal investigation; however, they had not yet had a response to this as requested. During our assessment, we could not see a record of this investigation therefore we cannot be assured this incident has been responded to appropriately.

We could not see that the service had any direct links to the community to share learning and drive continuous improvements to the service. The provider worked with their local healthcare professionals to ensure consistent care to people. Professionals had worked with the service to deliver additional training to staff. For example, delivering manual handling training.

The registered manager told us they used root cause analysis to reflect when things had gone wrong, ensuring they could learn from these and put measures in place. For example, additional staff training. However, we did not see these evidenced within the provider’s systems to be assured these were working effectively.

The provider had action plans in place to drive improvements. However, theses did not always identify areas we found during our assessment. The provider was highly engaged throughout the assessment process and was keen to drive improvement. The provider made some immediate improvements to improve the quality of care people received.