CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Gables Private Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risk assessments and care guidance were up to date. The home was clean, staffing and recruitment were safe, and people were supported to take medicines safely, although some handwritten medicine entries were not signed or countersigned.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supervised. People were supported with nutrition, hydration, consent, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not separately inspected during this follow-up visit, so the report does not give a new Caring rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and regularly reviewed. People could take part in activities, maintain relationships and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management systems had improved. Audits, meetings and communication systems were used to monitor quality, identify patterns and make improvements.
What inspectors found, June 2023
The Gables Private Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 17 May 2023. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, visitors and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found that earlier problems with risk assessments, infection control, consent and management oversight had been addressed.
People were supported by trained staff, received their medicines safely and were helped with food, drinks and healthcare. Care plans were personalised and people and relatives were involved in decisions about care.
One minor medicines recording issue remained. Some handwritten medicine entries had not been signed or checked, although inspectors found no errors and the manager said practice had been discussed with the pharmacist.
Improved risk management
Risk assessments and care plans were accurate and gave staff clear guidance. Referrals were made to healthcare professionals when risks changed.
“People were protected from risk. Information regarding assessed risks were up to date and accurate.” from the report
Safe staffing
The home had enough staff and recruitment checks had been completed before staff worked with people. Staff had relevant training and supervision.
“At this inspection the provider followed safe recruitment practices. Pre-employment checks had been made before staff worked with people.” from the report
Personalised support
People and relatives were involved in care planning. Staff used information about people's lives, interests and communication needs to tailor support.
“People's care was personalised. People and relatives confirmed staff were responsive and support was tailored to their individual requirements.” from the report
Better oversight
The management team had improved audits and monitoring. Meetings and handovers helped staff share information and follow up actions.
“Systems had been improved to ensure the quality of the service was continuously monitored.” from the report
Handwritten medicines records
minorSome medicines were handwritten onto administration records because a person started after the printed records had arrived. The entries had not been signed or countersigned, although no errors were found.
“Although no errors were identified, the handwritten entries had not been signed or countersigned.” from the report
- 01How are handwritten medicine entries now signed, checked and followed up?
- 02What action was agreed with the pharmacist after the inspection about medicine recording?
- 03Has the planned shower room been added, and how are people who prefer showers supported meanwhile?
- 04How will you continue checking that risk assessments and care plans stay accurate?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing personalised care plans and activities?
This was a follow-up inspection of action from the previous inspection; the report says ratings for key questions not inspected carried over from the last inspection, and no new Caring rating is shown. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 June 2023 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, May 2022
The Gables Private Residential Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found ongoing safety and management problems despite some improvements.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 15 March 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home had improved medicine management since the previous inspection. However, risks to people's health were not always properly assessed or recorded. Inspectors also found problems with cleanliness, use of protective equipment, staff recruitment, training and mental capacity safeguards.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Requires Improvement because the other areas were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward.
Medicine management
Inspectors found that medicines were stored and managed safely. Records showed how people preferred to receive their medicines.
“Medicines were appropriately managed which meant people were protected from unnecessary risks and harm.” from the report
Respect and involvement
People were treated respectfully and people and relatives were involved in decisions about care. Relatives spoken to said they were happy with the care.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. People and relatives told us they were being actively included in decisions about their care.” from the report
Working with professionals
Staff worked with visiting professionals to support people's mobility and independence. A health professional also described a good working relationship with the home.
“Staff worked with visiting professionals to ensure good outcomes for people.” from the report
Feedback and openness
The manager had involved people, relatives and staff in giving feedback. Inspectors saw evidence that some improvements and lessons had followed.
“The registered manager had been proactive in engaging with people using the service, relatives and staff.” from the report
Risks were not properly assessed
seriousHealth risks were not always identified or recorded with clear steps to reduce them. Staff supporting one person at mealtimes did not know about the person's choking and aspiration risk.
“Systems had not been established to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service” from the report
Cleanliness and protective equipment
seriousInspectors found soiled toilets and a commode, dirty clothing near clinical waste, and staff wearing masks that did not cover their nose and mouth.
“The service was not clean in all areas which posed a risk of cross contamination.” from the report
Mental capacity safeguards
seriousThe home was not consistently following the Mental Capacity Act. Some people who lacked capacity did not have the required authorisation in place.
“Not all people who lacked capacity had a DoLs in place.” from the report
Recruitment and training records
needs fixingSome staff files were missing criminal records checks, proof of address and other information. Some training was out of date, including practical training that was needed for moving and handling and first aid.
“Staff were not always recruited safely. There was information missing from staff files including up to date criminal records checks, proof of address and other information” from the report
Management checks and supervision
needs fixingThe home had introduced more audits, but checks did not cover all areas effectively. Staff did not receive regular formal supervision as set out in the provider's policy.
“However, not all areas had robust audits in place, and this had led to improvements not being made.” from the report
- 01How are you now recording and reviewing risks for people with conditions such as diabetes or swallowing difficulties?
- 02How do staff supporting people at mealtimes know about choking and aspiration risks?
- 03Have all staff files been updated with criminal records checks, proof of address and other recruitment information?
- 04Which staff have completed practical moving and handling and first aid training, and how is this checked?
- 05How do you make sure people who lack capacity have the correct best-interest decisions and DoLS authorisations?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 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.
Every inspection of The Gables Private Residential Home
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Gables Private Residential Home →
- May 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Gables Private Residential Home →
- October 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Derby
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 £1,260 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
“Rachel is a quietly spoken, extremely caring person and looked after Val very well.”
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.