CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Gables
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed, medicines were generally given as needed, staff recruitment checks were completed and accidents and incidents were reviewed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and understood people's needs. People received suitable food and drink, healthcare support and help with communication, choice and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- Staff were often kind, patient and respectful, but privacy and dignity were not always maintained. Inspectors also heard concerns about missing clothing and footwear.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's needs and preferences. People had access to activities, community outings, religious support and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff generally thought the management was approachable and open. However, five people's records had not been updated to reflect their current needs, and two as-needed medicines did not have protocols at the time of inspection.
What inspectors found, September 2019
The Gables was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective and responsive care, but dignity and record keeping needed improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 12 and 13 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, effective, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Caring was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found people were generally safe, supported with their health and nutrition, and involved in activities and decisions about their care.
There were problems with privacy and dignity. Some people entered other people's bedrooms, clothing and footwear went missing, and staff did not always remove protective aids or notice when support was needed. Some care records and medicines guidance were also not updated promptly.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement after an inspection published in February 2017. This was the first inspection under the new provider and management team. The home was not placed in special measures.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. The home assessed risks and had plans to manage falls, malnutrition, skin problems and moving and handling.
“People we spoke with told us they felt safe.” from the report
Staff skills and training
Inspectors found staff had training and understood how to support people with complex needs safely and positively.
“Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported in their roles and had regular training opportunities, to enable them to meet people's needs.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were offered choices and food suited to their cultural and dietary needs. The home worked with health professionals and monitored nutrition and hydration.
“We saw people were offered choices and a varied diet which met their specific needs such as cultural and dietary requirements.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People were supported with group and one-to-one activities, community trips and places of worship. Relatives were involved in care decisions and feedback.
“The home has two activities co-ordinators that plan and support people to take part in meaningful activities.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff described the management as approachable. Inspectors found the management team open about issues and willing to make improvements.
“Throughout the inspection we found the management team honest, open and transparent about any issues we brought to their attention.” from the report
Privacy was not always protected
needs fixingPeople were seen entering other people's bedrooms and staying there before staff intervened. This meant privacy was not always maintained.
“We observed occasions where people's privacy was not always maintained.” from the report
Dignity during care
needs fixingStaff did not always remove protective aids after meals or notice promptly when a person's meal needed replacing. Inspectors had to prompt staff on some occasions.
“We saw occasions were people's dignity was not always maintained.” from the report
Clothing and footwear went missing
minorRelatives reported that clothing and footwear sometimes went missing or were worn by other people. The manager said action would be taken.
“Some relatives raised concerns with us about clothing and slippers going missing or worn by other people.” from the report
Care records were not updated promptly
needs fixingFive people's records did not fully reflect their current needs, including changes relating to end of life care. Information was recorded elsewhere, but not always in the relevant care plan.
“we found five instances where people's records had not yet been updated to reflect their current needs.” from the report
As-needed medicines guidance
needs fixingTwo people did not have protocols explaining when their as-needed medicines should be given. The home later confirmed that these protocols had been put in place.
“Protocols were not in place for two people that were prescribed "as and when required" medicines to support and guide staff when to administer these medicines.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to stop people entering other people's bedrooms and to protect privacy?
- 02How do you now check that protective aids are removed promptly after meals and that personal care needs are noticed?
- 03How do you label, track and return residents' clothing, shoes and slippers?
- 04How quickly are care plans updated when a person's needs change, especially during end of life care?
- 05How are staff guided to decide when to give each person's as-needed medicine, and how is this checked?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 September 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.
Every inspection of The Gables
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 July 2017.
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 Sandwell
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.