CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Gable Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse, risk assessments, safe medicines management, infection control measures and accident reviews. They noted that money held for some people was not routinely checked and one diabetes risk assessment was incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found quality monitoring systems, a clear management structure, an open culture and opportunities for people, relatives and staff to share their views. One relative described communication as inconsistent.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and good leadership, but noted gaps in checking people's money and mixed views about staffing.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 1 August 2023. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led after concerns about infection control, staffing, moving and handling, and wound care. They spoke with people, visitors and staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The inspectors rated Safe Good. They found systems to protect people from abuse, enough staff on the inspection day, safe medicine arrangements, infection control measures and checks of accidents and incidents. They found no evidence that the concerns received had put people at risk of harm.
The inspectors also rated Well-led Good. They found quality checks, an open culture and ways for people, relatives and staff to give their views. The overall Good rating used these two new ratings together with the ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection, which was published in November 2021.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and records checked by inspectors were accurate, with no unexplained gaps.
“Medicine administration records were maintained which staff signed after giving each medicine, which meant there was an audit trail in place.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including safe use of protective equipment and clean premises.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents and incidents were recorded, reviewed for patterns and used to consider further action.
“Accidents and incidents were analysed for trends and patterns to see what actions could be taken to reduce the risk of further similar occurrences.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used audits and regular visits to review medicines, infection control, health and safety, care plans and risk assessments.
“The provider had various quality assurance and monitoring systems in place for continuous learning and improving care.” from the report
People's involvement
People, relatives and staff had meetings and surveys to raise issues and suggest improvements.
“Separate meetings were held for staff, people who used the service and relatives.” from the report
Checking residents' money
needs fixingMoney held for some people was kept securely, but it was not routinely checked. The provider had identified this and was introducing checks to reduce the risk of financial abuse.
“However, this money was not routinely checked.” from the report
One incomplete risk assessment
needs fixingOne person's diabetes risk assessment did not fully describe their risks. The nurse reviewed and revised it on the day of inspection.
“We found for 1 person with diabetes the risk assessment was not comprehensive.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
minorMost staff said there were enough staff, and inspectors saw prompt support on the day. However, people and relatives did not all agree about staffing levels.
“People and relatives had mixed views about the staffing levels.” from the report
Communication
minorThe home was described as open and approachable, but one relative reported that communication with staff was inconsistent.
“The communications here is much hit and miss with staff.” from the report
- 01How often do you now check money held for residents, and who reviews those checks?
- 02What changes were made after the diabetes risk assessment was found to be incomplete?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain suitable during busy periods, nights and staff absences?
- 04How will you make communication with relatives more consistent?
- 05Has the manager completed the process of applying for CQC registration?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safer medicines management and stronger oversight, with one medicines recording error and mixed views about staffing.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 October and 1 November 2021. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and call-bell responses, and checked care records, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and other documents.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found people received medicines on time, risks were assessed, safeguarding systems were in place, staff responded promptly to call bells and infection control measures were effective.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement and had two breaches of regulations. Inspectors found it was no longer in breach. One medicines administration record had not been signed, but this had been identified through auditing and was being addressed.
Improved medicines systems
The home had improved its controls for controlled medicines and medicines given when needed. Records were generally completed, and audits were used to identify and address errors.
“At this inspection, we noted the registered manager had made improvements in this area with a system requiring two staff to witness the administration of CDs.” from the report
Prompt support
Inspectors observed staff responding promptly when people needed help, including when a call bell was used.
“We noted similar prompt response by staff throughout the inspection.” from the report
Regular quality checks
The home used daily, weekly and monthly audits covering medicines, incidents, falls, equipment and other areas of care.
“Staff carried out daily, weekly and monthly audits of different elements such as medicines, incidents and accidents, falls and the safety of equipment and facilities.” from the report
Positive management
There was a clear management structure, and staff described managers as approachable and supportive.
“The manager is good, approachable and understanding.” from the report
One medicines record was incomplete
needs fixingInspectors found one missing signature on a medicines administration record from the night before the visit. The home had identified the error and said it would review it with staff.
“We saw one gap in recording of MARS where staff did not sign to confirm a person received their medicine.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
minorSome people, relatives and staff felt more staff were needed, although inspectors observed staff available to support people and the home had a staffing system based on people's needs.
“At times it is quite busy, but we are managing.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff on each floor when people's needs change?
- 02What action was taken after the missing medicines administration signature?
- 03How often are medicines records checked, and how are repeated recording errors prevented?
- 04How are risks such as falls, skin care and bed-rail use reviewed for my relative?
- 05How will relatives be kept informed about incidents, accidents or changes in care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 November 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Gable Court Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2020Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 2018.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Redbridge
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.