CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Red Gables
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, with enough staff, safe recruitment, current risk assessments and suitable infection control arrangements. However, medicines given by visiting healthcare professionals were not always added to the home's medicines records.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care from trained and supported staff and were helped with food, drink, health appointments and mobility. Some parts of the environment needed updating, and one blood sugar care plan lacked instructions for readings outside the target range.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report describes people being treated with dignity and staff providing person-centred care, but the Caring rating was not given in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The Responsive rating was not given in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was visible and approachable, used audits and feedback to improve care, and communicated well with staff and outside professionals.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Red Gables was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, but medicines records and some parts of the building needed attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 7 and 8 March 2023. Inspectors looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led because of concerns about staffing and management. They spoke with people, staff, a relative and professionals, observed care, and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe recruitment, good safeguarding arrangements, detailed care records and appropriate support with health needs, food and activities.
There were some shortfalls. Medicines given by visiting healthcare professionals were not always recorded on the home's medicines records. Inspectors also found worn, stained and split hallway carpet, and one care plan did not say what staff should do if a person's blood sugar was outside the target range.
This was a focused inspection, not a full review of all five areas. Caring and Responsive were not inspected, so the overall rating used some ratings from the previous inspection.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff on duty and saw that staff had the training and support needed to meet people's needs.
“People were supported by enough staff on duty who had been trained to do their jobs properly.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff knew people well, respected their dignity and asked for consent before providing support.
“People were treated in a dignified manner and staff were aware of people's support needs.” from the report
Good support with health
Staff worked with healthcare professionals, recognised changes in people's health and made timely referrals when needed.
“Staff were proactive in making timely referrals to health professionals when they had concerns around people's health and well-being.” from the report
Positive management
The home had clear responsibilities, good communication and systems for reviewing incidents, feedback and the quality of care.
“The management and staff worked to drive improvements across the service.” from the report
Medicine records were incomplete
needs fixingMedicines given by visiting healthcare professionals were not always recorded on the home's medicines administration records. Inspectors made a recommendation about this.
“MARs did not always include medicines given by healthcare professionals.” from the report
Some areas needed updating
minorThe main hallway carpet was heavily stained, worn and split. New flooring had been ordered, but it had not yet been replaced during the inspection.
“We found the carpets running through the main hallway were heavily stained, worn and split in some areas.” from the report
One health plan lacked instructions
needs fixingA care plan did not explain what staff should do if a person's blood sugar was outside the target range. The manager said this would be recorded immediately.
“However, the care plan, did not describe what action staff should take if the blood sugar level was outside of the target range.” from the report
- 01How are medicines given by visiting healthcare professionals recorded now, and who checks that the records are complete?
- 02Has the worn and split hallway carpet been replaced, and have the other areas needing updating been dealt with?
- 03What written instructions do staff now follow if a person's blood sugar is outside the target range?
- 04How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient when there are absences or recruitment difficulties?
- 05How are people's views about activities, daily choices and their care reviewed, given that Caring and Responsive were not inspected in this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and ratings for uninspected areas were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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, December 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but medicines, parts of the environment and some risk records needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 3 December 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They also checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and other documents.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, caring relationships, suitable training, good support with health needs and activities for people.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found weaknesses in medicines records and administration, some environmental safety risks and electronic risk assessments that did not explain how staff should reduce risks. They made recommendations about medicines and the environment, but found no serious risks or concerns that changed the overall rating.
Kind and patient staff
Inspectors saw warm, respectful interactions. Staff knew people well and adapted their approach to individual needs.
“We observed staff supporting people gently and with patience.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs. Call bells were usually answered within five minutes, and an extra morning care worker had been added.
“There were enough staff on duty to help ensure people's needs were met quickly.” from the report
Good staff training
New staff had background checks and an induction. Training, supervision and appraisals helped staff develop the skills needed for their roles.
“New staff underwent thorough pre-employment background checks and received a comprehensive induction programme.” from the report
Food and dietary support
People's food preferences, allergies and dietary needs were recorded. Inspectors observed a pleasant and social mealtime, with snacks and drinks available.
“The kitchen had been inspected by the Food Standards Agency and awarded the highest rating.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home carried out audits and reviewed accidents and incidents. Inspectors found that learning was used to support improvements.
“There were effective quality assurance systems in place. Incidents were appropriately recorded and analysed.” from the report
Environmental hazards
seriousEquipment was stored in corridors and stairwells, creating possible trip hazards. A patio had a drop because its surrounding fence had been removed, although access had been blocked.
“There was a raised patio area outside the conservatory, the surrounding fence had been removed and there was a three foot drop to the ground.” from the report
Care notes lacked detail
minorNew daily records focused on completing tasks and did not contain enough information about emotional wellbeing or how people had spent their time. The manager had identified this as a training need.
“The records were very task orientated with little detail about people's emotional well-being.” from the report
Limited formal feedback
minorResident and relative meetings had not attracted interest, surveys had a low response rate and staff meetings had not taken place recently. The home was still looking for better ways to gather views.
“There were limited formal opportunities for people and staff to share their views on the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine administration records, including photographs, signatures, second checks and controlled drug counts?
- 02Has the patio fence been repaired, and how are equipment and cleaning products now kept safely?
- 03How do the electronic care plans now tell staff what action to take when a person has an identified risk?
- 04How do staff record people's emotional wellbeing and daily experiences, rather than only recording completed tasks?
- 05How can residents and relatives give feedback, and when was the most recent residents, relatives or staff meeting?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care provided, with ratings given for all five questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 December 2018 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 Red Gables
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 August 2013.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.