Archived: The Gables

We last inspected The Gables in January 2014. The service met all the regulations we checked at that time.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff understood how to protect people from abuse. Staff assessed and reviewed people's needs and put plans in place on how to support them. Staff identified risks to people's health and had sufficient guidance on how to manage those risks safely. The service recorded and monitored accidents and incidents to identify how to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely. Managers were supportive and approachable and encouraged a culture of learning and staff development.

Medicines were managed appropriately and administered by competent staff. Staff knew each person well and understood how to meet their needs. Staff encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves.

Staff provided people’s care and support in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People consented to the care and support they received. Decisions were made in people's 'best interests' if they were unable to do so.

Staff were supported to develop their knowledge and skills to meet people's needs. Staff received specialist training on working with people with learning difficulties. Staff had regular supervisions on their performance and agreed on development plans.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff were polite to people and communicated effectively with them. People and their relatives were involved in planning and making decisions about their care and had input in review meetings. Care plans were person centred and reflected individual's preferences. Staff supported people to pursue their hobbies and interests.

Staff upheld people's dignity. They appropriately supported people in line with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People had access to the health care they needed. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Staff followed professional guidance regarding people’s nutritional needs. Staff knew people’s food likes and dislikes and met their preferences.

The registered manager sought people's views about the care they received and used their feedback to develop the service. Staff supported people to make their views and wishes known. People and their relatives were happy about how staff supported people. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and felt confident to raise a concern with the registered manager or staff.

The service carried out checks and audits to monitor the quality of care provided to people. The registered manager took action to address any areas that required improvement.

We looked at the care records for two people and found evidence that people's needs had been properly assessed and that support was planned and delivered in a way that met their individual needs. This meant that people were protected because staff had the necessary information to support them appropriately.

We found that medication was well managed at The Gables. The home had systems in place to ensure that people's medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. This meant that people received the right medicine at the right time and in the right way.

Staff told us that they had received training which enabled them to do their jobs effectively. We looked at the training matrix which showed that training was on-going with staff having access to induction, mandatory and specialist courses. This meant the people were supported by staff who knew what to do.

The home had a complaints policy and procedure in place and we saw that people were appropriately supported to voice their views. We saw evidence that where people had raised issues, that these had been listened to and appropriately addressed.