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.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe staffing and kind support, but safeguarding, restrictions and management needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 7 May 2021. It was prompted by concerns about safeguarding incidents, medicines and the culture of the home. Inspectors also checked infection control.
The home was not always safe or well-led. Two safeguarding incidents had not been referred to the local authority, and some incidents were not recorded properly. Some health and safety checks were incomplete. Inspectors also found that some people had restricted access to the kitchen, food and drinks without enough evidence that this was the least restrictive option.
There were also positive findings. Staffing levels covered the shifts, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were suitable. People said they liked the staff and felt listened to. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Effective was inspected but not rated, and Caring and Responsive were not covered by this focused inspection.
Staffing
Rotas showed that shifts were covered and staff said there were enough suitable staff on each shift. Recruitment systems were in place.
“We reviewed the staff rotas which confirmed shifts were covered.” from the report
Medicines
People received their prescribed medicines safely from trained staff. Medicines were stored securely and records were kept.
“People received their prescribed medicines safely from staff who had been trained to carry out the task.” from the report
People felt safe and heard
People told inspectors they liked the staff and felt listened to. Relatives did not raise safety concerns.
“People told us they liked the staff and felt listened to.” from the report
Community and independence
People had access to their local community. Staff supported people to move towards more independent living when appropriate.
“People had access to their local community.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for preventing and managing infection, including PPE, testing and visits.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safeguarding was not followed up
seriousTwo safeguarding incidents were not reported to the local authority and were not formally investigated. This was a breach of Regulation 13.
“These had not been reported to the local authority safeguarding team and no formal action was taken to investigate the concerns.” from the report
Incidents were not always recorded
needs fixingSome incidents, including the two safeguarding incidents, were not recorded using the provider's reporting system.
“Where incidents had occurred, these were not always recorded on incident forms.” from the report
Restrictions on kitchen access
needs fixingAt times, people had to ask staff to access the kitchen, food and drinks. Inspectors found limited evidence that this was the least restrictive option.
“There was limited evidence to demonstrate other less restrictive options had been considered and that the decision to lock the kitchen was the least restrictive option.” from the report
Expired DoLS authorisations
needs fixingEight people needed Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations, but all of those authorisations had expired while the home waited for the local authority.
“There were another eight people who required a DoLS, all of which had expired.” from the report
Incomplete checks and disrespectful language
minorSome health and safety checks had not been completed in April 2021. Inspectors also found disrespectful wording in a care plan and in staff descriptions of one person.
“This included one person being referred to as, "Stubborn" in their care plan.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to ensure every safeguarding concern is reported, investigated and recorded?
- 02How are restrictions on kitchen, food and drink access reviewed for each person, and what less restrictive options have been considered?
- 03Have the eight expired DoLS applications been resolved, and what is the current legal position for each person?
- 04Have the incomplete April 2021 health and safety checks been repeated and brought up to date?
- 05What changes have been made to the home's culture, records and leadership since the interim manager took over?
This was a targeted inspection that became a focused inspection of Safe, parts of Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and the previous Effective rating was not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 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.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Red Gables: targeted inspection found good infection-control arrangements, but the service was not rated.
CQC visited on 28 January 2021. The announced inspection was part of the response to coronavirus and focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found hand-cleaning stations, visitor checks, regular cleaning and suitable supplies of protective equipment. Staff had infection-control training and were using protective equipment properly.
The home had arrangements for testing, visiting, social distancing and future admissions. Inspectors said they were assured that people were being kept safe from infection.
This was not a full inspection of the home. The overall service and Safe question were marked “Inspected but not rated”.
Infection-control checks
Visitors completed health and contact-tracing information and had their temperatures checked. Staff also recorded their temperatures and cleaned their hands and shoes before entering.
“Contact tracing and health declaration forms were completed on arrival at the home and staff checked visitors' temperatures.” from the report
Protective equipment and training
Staff had infection-control training, the home had enough protective equipment and inspectors saw it being used properly.
“Staff had received training in infection control, including how to safely put on and take off personal protective equipment (PPE)” from the report
Cleaning and layout
The home had increased cleaning and changed its layout to support social distancing.
“Additional cleaning had been implemented throughout the home.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
The home arranged regular testing for staff and residents. It also had plans for future admissions and for managing possible disruption to care.
“The registered manager ensured regular Covid-19 testing was carried out, weekly for staff and monthly for people living in the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are staff still tested weekly and are people living in the home still tested monthly?
- 02How often are frequently touched areas such as light switches and handles cleaned now?
- 03What protective equipment is available, and how do you check that staff use it correctly?
- 04How are visits arranged, and how do you support residents to keep in touch with relatives?
- 05If someone new is admitted, how will testing and the 14-day isolation period be managed?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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 Red Gables
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 June 2014.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,020 to £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.