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
- People said they felt safe. Staffing levels were sufficient, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were managed safely. Inspectors noted a recommendation about confusing guidance on reporting allegations of abuse.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support from trained staff and had access to health professionals. Inspectors noted that a weight tracker was planned because there was no overview of weight gain or loss.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Staff knew people very well and supported their choices, relationships, hobbies and independence. This rating improved from Good at the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and activities reflected people's interests. Information was available in easy read formats, but end of life plans needed more detail.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had motivated staff, regular meetings and effective audits. Complaints were acted on and used to improve care, although safeguarding reporting guidance needed review.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found outstandingly caring support, with a recommendation about safeguarding guidance.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. The inspector spoke with seven people, a visitor and five staff. They also checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness, responsiveness and leadership. Caring was rated Outstanding. People were supported to make choices, build independence, keep relationships and take part in activities that mattered to them.
The inspectors found safe staffing, medicines procedures and care planning. They made one recommendation because guidance about reporting possible abuse was confusing. They also noted some smaller areas needing improvement, including fuller end of life plans and better tracking of people's weights.
Kind and personal care
Staff focused on each person's wishes and treated people as adults with their own choices. People were supported with patience, dignity and respect.
“The staff team demonstrated exceptional caring values and a desire to provide person centred care focused around each individuals' needs and wishes.” from the report
Choice and independence
People had their own flats and were supported to make daily decisions, develop skills and take more control of their lives.
“There was a strong focus within the service of promoting people's independence.” from the report
Activities that mattered
Staff helped people enjoy individual hobbies, holidays, relationships and community activities. Support was adapted to people's interests and aspirations.
“The staff team took steps which exceeded expectations to help people pursue their individual hobbies and interests.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
There were enough staff, recruitment checks had been completed and staff handling medicines had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting guidance
needs fixingThree low-level incidents between people had not been reported to the CQC. The provider's guidance was confusing, so inspectors recommended that it should be reviewed.
“We recommend the registered provider reviews their safeguarding guidance to registered managers.” from the report
Weight monitoring
minorWeights were recorded and action was taken when needed, but there was no overall record showing weight gain or loss over time. The manager said a tracker would be created.
“We saw weights were recorded and appropriate action had been taken where people were at risk of losing weight, although there was no overview of weight gain or loss.” from the report
End of life plans
minorEnd of life care plans existed, but inspectors said they needed more detail about people's wishes before their death.
“End of life care plans were in place, although further detail regarding people's wishes leading up to their death should be expanded on.” from the report
Voting information
minorPeople's care plans mentioned voting rights, but some people had not received voting cards or information about the recent European election. The manager said this would be followed up.
“People had not received voting cards or had information relating to the recent European election.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to your guidance for reporting possible abuse or incidents between people?
- 02Have you introduced the planned tracker to monitor people's weight over time?
- 03How have you expanded people's end of life plans and recorded their wishes?
- 04How do you support people to understand and use their voting rights?
- 05How do you make sure activities, relationships and holidays continue to reflect each person's choices?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, so the report assessed safety, effectiveness, caring, responsiveness and leadership. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 July 2019 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 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some management and record-keeping points to check.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 October 2016. One inspector spoke with seven people using the service, eight relatives, staff and the manager. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was supporting 10 people in nine flats, with space for up to 13 people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. Inspectors found that people were safe, had suitable care plans, received help with health needs and were supported to make choices and build independence.
People and relatives spoke positively about the care, staff and management. The home had systems for safeguarding, medicines, staffing, complaints and quality checks. However, there was no registered manager in post, one medicines record had the wrong administration frequency, and a broken communal kitchen fridge was still being addressed.
The overall rating was Good. Each of the five areas was also rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This means inspectors found the service met the required standard in all five areas at that inspection, although the report still identified matters to monitor.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were caring. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity, knocking before entering flats and giving privacy for medicines.
“Support was delivered in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, health needs and independence goals. Staff knew people well and supported a range of activities and community opportunities.
“This showed us that staff had the information they needed to provide personalised care to people.” from the report
Good health support
People were helped to access a wide range of health professionals when needed. Staff also had information about specific health conditions and support requirements.
“People were supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used surveys and regular audits to check care and safety. Inspectors saw examples where these checks led to action.
“There was a quality assurance system in place, which included satisfaction surveys, monthly service audits and quarterly health and safety audits.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingA registered manager was required, but none was in post during the inspection. The manager had applied for registration and the application was being processed.
“The service did not have a registered manager, but there was a manager who had been in post since January 2016” from the report
Medicine record error
needs fixingOne medicine administration record showed the wrong frequency for a medicine. The person had received it correctly, but the record could have confused staff or led to an incorrect administration.
“There was an error on one MAR we viewed, as the record showed the incorrect frequency for administration of one medication.” from the report
Broken communal fridge
minorAn outstanding action concerning a broken fridge in the communal kitchen was still being dealt with at the inspection.
“The manager advised us that one outstanding action in relation to a broken fridge in the communal kitchen was being addressed.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's application to become the registered manager been completed, and who is legally responsible for the home now?
- 02How are medicine administration records checked to make sure the instructions match the doctor's prescription and pharmacy records?
- 03Was the broken fridge in the communal kitchen repaired, and how are food safety checks recorded?
- 04How are people's independence goals reviewed and progress recorded?
- 05How are people and relatives told about significant changes to their relative's health or care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 2016 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.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kirklees
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 £1,260 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.