CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Gables Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing, safe admissions and outbreak arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2021
The Gables Residential Home: infection-control inspection found good COVID-19 measures, but the service was not rated overall.
This was an announced, targeted inspection in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures, rather than carrying out a full inspection of the home.
The inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. This included cleaning, PPE, testing, social distancing, safe admissions and arrangements for managing outbreaks.
The home had created indoor and garden visiting areas. Families could book visits, and people could also keep in touch by telephone or video call.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a separate rating for the five areas of care.
Enhanced cleaning
The home had increased its cleaning arrangements to help reduce COVID-19 transmission.
“The registered manager had implemented an enhanced cleaning schedule to reduce the risks of transmission of COVID-19.” from the report
PPE and staff preparation
PPE was available, and staff had scrubs, a changing area and extra infection-control training.
“Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available and staff had been provided with scrubs clothing and a changing area.” from the report
Family contact
The home offered booked indoor and garden visits, as well as telephone and video calls.
“Families and carers could book visits to see their relatives in a newly created indoor visiting "Pod" and garden area.” from the report
Infection-control systems
The home had arrangements for staff isolation, staggered breaks and managing symptoms or possible outbreaks.
“The service had systems in place to ensure staff isolated for the required period should they test positive for COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control measures are in place now, and how are they checked?
- 02How are visits arranged now, including indoor and garden visits?
- 03What training do staff receive on infection prevention and control and COVID-19 awareness?
- 04What happens if a staff member or resident develops symptoms or tests positive?
- 05When were the wider areas of care, including caring, responsive and well-led care, last inspected?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, so it did not assess the wider quality of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 May 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and activity plans needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 June 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience observed care, spoke with people, relatives, visitors, healthcare professionals and staff, and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable training, good healthcare access and care that respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
People enjoyed kind support, activities and freshly prepared food. However, some people wanted more menu choices and group activities. Staff did not always record when 'as and when required' medicines had been declined. The registered manager agreed to review these points.
The home remained Good, the same as at its previous inspection. This means inspectors found the service meeting the relevant standards overall, although the report still identified areas to improve.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly, protecting their privacy and supporting their dignity. People and relatives spoke positively about the care.
“We saw that staff were thoughtful and kind in their approach to people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's life histories, likes and dislikes. Staff knew people's individual needs and supported their choices about daily routines.
“The profile set out what was important to people and how staff should support them.” from the report
Safe staffing and risk management
The home had enough staff, reviewed risks and provided staff with safeguarding training. Staff understood how to respond to possible harm.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Good management and teamwork
The manager was visible and accessible, staff understood who was responsible for what, and inspectors found positive teamwork and morale.
“We found there to be a strong culture of good teamwork and morale amongst staff was positive.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People had regular activities and could keep in touch with friends and relatives using a phone line. The home also supported visitors and community links.
“We saw that an activity was arranged for each day of the week and people told us that they enjoyed these greatly.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingStaff had not always recorded when people declined 'as and when required' medicines. The manager said this would be addressed.
“Staff had not always indicated on the chart when 'as and when required' (PRN) medicines had been declined by the person.” from the report
Food choices
minorAlthough people generally liked the food, some said they wanted more changes in the menu. The manager agreed to review menus with residents.
“However some people told us that they would like more changes in the menu.” from the report
More group activities
minorPeople enjoyed the activities but all those spoken with wanted more group activities. The manager agreed to review the activity schedule.
“However, all people we spoke with told us that they would like to do more group activities because they enjoyed them so much.” from the report
No satisfaction survey
minorThe home did not provide a satisfaction survey for people and relatives. The manager said they preferred to speak with people individually because the home was small.
“The registered manager did not provide a satisfaction survey for people and their relatives to complete.” from the report
- 01How do you now record when someone declines an 'as and when required' medicine?
- 02What changes were made to the menu after people said they wanted more variety?
- 03How many group activities are now offered, and how are residents involved in planning them?
- 04How do you currently collect and act on feedback from residents and relatives?
- 05Have there been any important changes since the June 2017 inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing care, medicines, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 September 2017 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 Residential Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 September 2014.
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.