CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Gables
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, visiting, hygiene and safe admissions. The provider also had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and safe visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 7 January 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and any staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, managed testing and admissions, supported visits and kept its infection control policy up to date. The home was clean, and staff followed infection control training.
The home supports up to seven adults with learning disabilities. Five people were living there at the time. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Safe visiting
The home had several checks and precautions for professionals visiting, including testing, vaccination checks, hand sanitising and PPE.
“Safe arrangements were in place for professionals visiting the service.” from the report
Infection control
COVID-19 policies, procedures and risk assessments were up to date. Staff had infection control training and the provider carried out spot checks.
“Policies, procedures and risk assessments related to COVID-19 were up to date which enabled staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and fresh. Staff paid extra attention to frequently touched surfaces, and infection control audits were completed.
“The service was clean and fresh, staff carried out a number of additional tasks, such as cleaning of any regular touchpoint surfaces.” from the report
Support for staff
The provider assessed staff members' individual circumstances and offered support where needed.
“The provider offered support to aid the wellbeing of the team, individual assessments had been carried out with staff members” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control checks and audits are currently carried out, and what actions have followed from them?
- 02How do you currently manage visits and check that visiting professionals meet the home's safety requirements?
- 03How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 04How are staff training refreshers and spot checks on PPE and handwashing being kept up to date?
- 05When was the home's last full assessment of care, staffing, leadership and responsiveness?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 January 2022 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 safe, kind care, but activities and accessible information needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 and 13 November 2018. The inspectors spoke with the manager and staff, contacted relatives and health professionals, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and safety records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staff were trained and supported, and people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Fire safety had improved since the previous inspection in October 2017.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. The home offered some activities, but inspectors found these were not regular enough. Information was not always given in ways people could understand. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Safe care
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Risks were assessed and the home had improved its fire safety arrangements since the previous inspection.
“People were protected from harm because staff received training to be able to identify and report abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity, compassion and affection. People were supported with privacy, comfort and personal care.
“People were treated with kindness, affection and compassion.” from the report
Good healthcare support
The home kept healthcare records and supported people to attend appointments. Staff responded promptly when people had medical concerns.
“If there are any medical concerns, they are on it straight away” from the report
Improved staff support
Supervision had improved since the last inspection. New staff received a structured induction and staff had access to ongoing training.
“On this occasion, we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Strong management systems
The provider carried out regular audits and staff could approach the manager for advice. Records were well maintained and communication between staff was good.
“The quality of people's care was routinely monitored by the provider.” from the report
Activities were not regular enough
needs fixingPeople took part in some activities, but inspectors found little progress since the previous inspection. The home needed to provide more regular stimulation and community access.
“There was not much improvement from the previous inspection, to ensure that people had appropriate stimulation.” from the report
Information was not always accessible
needs fixingInformation was not consistently provided in ways people with complex needs could understand. The home needed further work and training in this area.
“The service needed to ensure that people had access to the information they required in a way they could understand” from the report
Agency worker checks
minorSenior staff could not always access records confirming the checks and identity of agency workers. The report recommended action to make these records available.
“We recommend action is taken to ensure all senior staff can access information about prospective agency workers.” from the report
Some notifications were missed
needs fixingThe home had not told the CQC about the outcomes of five applications to deprive people of their liberty. The report said these notifications should be made without delay.
“We found the registered manager had not informed us about the outcomes of five applications they made to the local authority, to deprive people of their liberty.” from the report
End of life training
needs fixingCare plans included end of life wishes where appropriate, but staff had not received end of life care training. The report recommended that this training be provided.
“We recommend training is provided for the staff team on good practice with end of life care.” from the report
- 01How often does the home now provide activities and trips into the community for each person?
- 02How do you provide important information in a form each person can understand?
- 03What end of life care training have staff completed since this inspection?
- 04How can all senior staff check the identity and required checks for agency workers before they work here?
- 05How do you make sure all required Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards outcomes are notified to the CQC?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with ratings compared with the previous inspection in October 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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 The Gables
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015Goodstayed GoodEffective: Good
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 November 2010.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.