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 found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, risk assessments and safe medicines management. The home was clean and well maintained, and safety equipment was regularly serviced.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported with food, healthcare, activities and decisions about their care. However, not all staff had completed or updated mandatory training in health and safety, safeguarding and infection control.
- Caring?
- Good
- The person spoken with said staff listened and explained things clearly. Staff supported the person's dignity, privacy, independence and involvement in care planning.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records gave detailed information about the person's routines, preferences and support needs. The person was supported to take part in community activities, attend college and raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an experienced manager, regular meetings and monthly quality audits. Staff and the provider worked together to monitor care and identify improvements.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some staff training was not up to date.
The inspection took place on 23 April 2019. One adult social care inspector reviewed information about the service, one person's care file, three staff recruitment files and other daily records. They spoke with one person living in the home, the manager and one member of staff.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments and a clean, well-maintained environment.
Care was planned around the person's needs, wishes and routines. The person was supported to make choices, stay independent, access healthcare, attend activities and take part in the local community.
The main shortfall was that not all staff had completed the provider's mandatory training. Training was not up to date for health and safety, safeguarding and infection control. The previous inspection, published on 30 September 2016, had also rated the service Good.
Personalised care
The care record contained detailed information about the person's daily routines, preferences and support needs. People were involved in planning their care.
“People were involved in the planning of their care and their care records reflected their personal needs and wishes.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely. Records showed medicines were given as prescribed.
“There were no gaps on the medicines administration records which showed medicines were given as prescribed.” from the report
Choice and independence
The person was supported to make choices, prepare meals, manage parts of daily life and maintain independence. Staff also supported activities and learning in the community.
“People were supported to maintain their independence and were given choice and control about their care and treatment.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
The person said they felt listened to and understood. Staff respected privacy and knew the person's preferences and needs.
“Staff explain things in a way I understand.” from the report
Regular oversight
The manager carried out monthly quality checks, and the provider reviewed these audits and created action plans where improvements were needed.
“The registered manager undertook monthly quality audits across all areas of the service to monitor the level of service being delivered.” from the report
Mandatory training incomplete
needs fixingNot all staff had completed the provider's mandatory training. Some training was not up to date in health and safety, safeguarding and infection control.
“Training records showed that not all staff had up to date training in health and safety, safeguarding and infections control.” from the report
- 01Which staff training was incomplete at the inspection, and has all mandatory training now been completed?
- 02How do you check that staff are competent in safeguarding, health and safety and infection control?
- 03How would you assess and record my relative's individual routines, preferences and support needs?
- 04How would my relative be supported to make choices, maintain independence and take part in community activities?
- 05How are medicines checked and how would you respond if a medicines record was incomplete?
This was a scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions, but only one person was living in the home and inspectors reviewed one care file. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 June 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, September 2016
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some staffing, medicines and decision-making records to improve.
The inspection was announced and took place on 11 and 12 August 2016. The inspector spoke with two people and four staff. They reviewed one person's care records, two staff recruitment files, training records, one person's medicines records, and the home's audits, complaints and incident records.
The home supported three people in self-contained flats. Inspectors found people were safe, supported by trained staff and helped to access healthcare. Staff were kind and respectful. People were involved in decisions, encouraged to be independent, and given activities suited to their preferences.
The CQC rated the home Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found the required standard of care in each area, although the report also identified some issues that needed attention.
Managing risks
Inspectors found that risks were identified, recorded clearly and managed with specific guidance for staff. Incidents and accidents were reviewed regularly.
“Risks to people were identified and well managed.” from the report
Staff training
Staff described the training and support positively. New staff received face-to-face training, shadowing and an induction with competency checks.
“New staff were supported with a comprehensive induction.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff and were involved in day-to-day choices. Staff respected people's privacy and supported them to do more for themselves.
“People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Personalised support
People had different routines and preferences, and staff adapted support to them. Activities and holidays were planned around individual interests.
“We saw through our discussions and observations that the support provided to people was individualised and responsive.” from the report
Quality monitoring
External audits covered care records, medicines, staffing, activities and the premises. Actions were recorded and followed up.
“Where actions were identified we saw there was a clear action plan and actions were followed up in order to check they had been completed.” from the report
Temporary medicines storage
needs fixingSome additional medicines were being kept in a locked office filing cabinet because they did not fit in a person's secure cabinet. A larger secure cabinet had been ordered, but it was not in place during the inspection.
“Although the filing cabinet and office door were kept locked, this was not the most suitable manner in which to store medicines.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingThe report found no formal mental capacity or best-interest assessments before one DoLS application. Records also conflicted about whether a person could decide about their diet.
“This meant the MCA was not followed consistently.” from the report
Audio-monitoring records
needs fixingAudio monitors were being used, but records did not clearly explain their use, the person's consent or whether less restrictive options had been considered.
“There was a lack of documentation regarding the use of such equipment and how this should be managed in relation to people's privacy.” from the report
- 01How are staffing changes communicated to each person, especially when a change may cause anxiety?
- 02Has the larger secure medicines cabinet been installed, and how are medicines stored now?
- 03Have formal mental capacity and best-interest assessments been completed where needed?
- 04What records are now kept about audio monitors, consent and less restrictive alternatives?
- 05How do your audits check that care plans and decision-making records remain accurate and consistent?
This was an announced inspection of all five CQC question areas, based on speaking with two people and four staff and reviewing selected records rather than every care record. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 September 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.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 November 2012.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.