CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Gables Retirement Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found gaps in risk management, medicines, cleanliness, care planning and oversight, despite some kind and responsive care.
The unannounced inspection took place on 30 May 2022. Inspectors spoke with five people, 12 relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, recruitment, training and quality records.
The home was not consistently safe. Some risks were not recorded properly, medicines were not always managed or stored safely, and some equipment and areas were not clean enough. Families also reported that staffing levels sometimes affected personal care and that people's privacy was not always protected.
There were positive findings too. People generally had enough to eat and drink, received healthcare support, had activities and were supported at the end of their lives. However, all five areas were rated Requires Improvement, meaning the service was not consistently meeting the expected standard and needed to make improvements.
Learning from incidents
The provider reviewed incidents such as falls and took steps to reduce the chance of them happening again.
“The provider had taken opportunities to learn from incidents and improve care.” from the report
Food and nutrition
People had enough to eat and drink, with choices available and support for those who needed help eating.
“People had enough to eat and drink and people's dietary needs were met.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered activities and helped people keep in touch with important relationships.
“People were supported to maintain relationships with those who were important to them and there were a range of activities for people to take part in at the home.” from the report
End-of-life care
People received compassionate care at the end of their lives, and families gave positive feedback about this support.
“People received person centred, compassionate care at the end of their lives.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousRisk assessments and care plans were not always in place or detailed enough. This meant staff might not have clear instructions for supporting people safely.
“Care plans did not always contain clear detail about how staff should support people who experienced distressed behaviours.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousSome medicines records were incomplete or out of date. Staff had also not always followed professional guidance when giving medicines covertly.
“Medicines were not always managed or stored safely.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection risk
needs fixingSome equipment and parts of the home were not sufficiently clean. Inspectors said this increased the risk of infection spreading.
“Issues with the cleanliness of the environment and equipment increased the risk of infection spreading.” from the report
Care planning and legal records
needs fixingSome new residents did not have timely, complete assessments. Capacity assessments and best-interests decisions were not always recorded.
“People were at risk of inconsistent support. People's needs were not always assessed in a timely manner and consequently staff were not consistently provided with adequate information to support people.” from the report
Privacy and staffing
needs fixingToilet locks had been removed in some areas. Families also reported times when staff were unavailable for continence care, leaving people in undignified situations.
“The families of three people told us about times where staff had not been available to support with continence care which had left people in undignified situations.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems had not identified several problems found during the inspection. This was the subject of the report's regulatory breach.
“Systems to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service were not fully effective.” from the report
- 01Have all residents' risk assessments and care plans now been completed, especially for new residents and people who may become distressed?
- 02How are medicines records checked for accuracy, and how do you ensure covert medicines are given exactly as health professionals direct?
- 03What cleaning checks are now used for sensor mats, moving and handling equipment and communal areas?
- 04How do you record capacity assessments and best-interests decisions when using sensor mats or other movement monitoring?
- 05What steps have been taken to ensure enough staff are available for continence care and to protect residents' privacy?
This was an unannounced inspection of the newly registered home covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it was prompted partly by concerns about staff conduct. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 August 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 Retirement Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 August 2019.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.