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, hygiene, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and COVID-19 safety practices.
The inspection took place on 20 January 2021 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection because of the coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control. They were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, followed social distancing and shielding rules, and had processes for testing and managing possible infections.
Staff had infection control training. The home monitored its supplies, carried out audits, kept families updated, and supported people's social and emotional wellbeing. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control
Staff followed infection prevention procedures and had enough protective equipment. Stock levels were monitored.
“Staff followed government guidance in relation to personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection prevention and control (IPC) practices.” from the report
COVID-19 testing
Testing was taking place for staff and people using the home. Capacity and best-interests processes were used where people could not consent.
“COVID-19 testing was taking place for all staff and three people using the service.” from the report
Family communication
The provider and staff kept relatives informed about guidance and people's health through regular calls and emails.
“The provider and staff kept family members up to date about the latest guidance and their relative's health via regular telephone calls and emails.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had training in infection prevention and control, including PPE and hand hygiene.
“All staff had undertaken training in IPC.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently monitoring PPE supplies and making sure staff use PPE safely?
- 02How are people using the home and staff currently offered COVID-19 testing?
- 03What process do you follow when a person cannot consent to testing?
- 04How do you monitor people for signs and symptoms of infection?
- 05How will you keep our family updated about guidance and our relative's health?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices during the coronavirus outbreak; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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.
What inspectors found, October 2018
The Gables was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some decoration and record-keeping issues.
This was an announced comprehensive inspection on 21 August 2018. One inspector met five of the seven people living there, observed staff support, spoke with staff and managers, and received feedback from families and an advocate. Inspectors also checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training, complaints and safety information.
All five areas were rated Good. The home had improved from Requires Improvement to Good for safety since the previous inspection. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments and robust recruitment.
People received person-centred care that promoted choice, independence, privacy and dignity. Staff understood people's needs, supported health appointments and provided activities based on individual interests. The home was described as well-led, with systems for checking quality and responding to complaints.
Some bedrooms needed redecoration, and the main corridor flooring was difficult to clean and unsuitable for heavy use. An advocate also said care files could be a little jumbled. These issues did not change the overall Good rating.
Improved safety
Safety had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Inspectors found suitable staffing, risk assessments, safeguarding arrangements and safety checks.
“At this inspection we found the service had improved to good.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given, recorded and disposed of safely. Staff had medicines training and competency checks.
“Medicines were stored safely, obtained in a timely way so that people did not run out of them, administered on time, recorded correctly and disposed of appropriately.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff supported people's independence and treated them with dignity. They respected privacy, preferred names, personal routines and choices.
“People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities and outings were planned around people's interests and preferences. These included music, horse riding, swimming, meals out and visits to family and friends.
“People had their own personal timetable of activities and outings written for them by the staff and based on each person's preferences, interests and hobbies.” from the report
Open management
The home had regular management checks, staff meetings and feedback from families and professionals. Inspectors found an open culture focused on people's individual needs.
“Staff morale was high and the culture of the service was open, honest and focused on people's individual needs.” from the report
Decoration and flooring
minorSome bedroom walls needed redecoration, and the main corridor flooring was difficult to clean and unsuitable for heavy use such as wheelchairs. The provider knew about these issues and some refurbishment had taken place.
“Some bedrooms we viewed would benefit from redecoration as walls were marked by dust and dirt above radiators and there were repaired areas left unpainted.” from the report
Care file organisation
minorAn advocate found the care plans easy to read but said the files could be better organised. Families should ask how the home makes sure important information is easy for staff to find.
“The care plans are easy to read, although the files can be a bit jumbled up.” from the report
- 01What is the current plan and timescale for redecorating the bedrooms where walls were marked or repaired areas were left unpainted?
- 02What has been done about replacing or improving the main corridor flooring, especially for wheelchair use and cleaning?
- 03How do you make sure care files stay organised so staff can quickly find the latest care plans and risk assessments?
- 04How are activities and outings planned around each person's preferences, and how are challenging but achievable objectives agreed?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in care reviews and decisions about support?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, although inspectors could not hold in-depth conversations with people because of the complex nature of their conditions. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 October 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 2011.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.