You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 December 2015

We inspected White Gables on 6 October. The inspection was unannounced. The last inspection took place on 10 January 2014 during which we found that the provider had met all of the outcomes we inspected.

White Gables provides care and support for up to 55 older people, some of whom experience needs related to memory loss requiring high levels of care and nursing. The building is split into three different units with each focusing on either nursing or personal care. It is located on the edge of a village on the outskirts of Lincoln and is surrounded by fields and woodland.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves. At the time of the inspection 21 people who lived within the home had their freedom restricted and the provider had acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 DoLS.

People were safe living within the home. Staff knew how to recognise and escalate any concerns so that people were kept safe from harm.

Staff had been supported to assist people in a personalised way. They provided care as set out in each person’s care record and we found this helped to reduce the risk inappropriate care being given. There were clear arrangements in place for ordering, storing, administering and disposing of medicines.

People were provided with a choice of nutritious meals. When necessary, people were given extra help to make sure that they had enough to eat and drink. People also had access to a range of healthcare professionals, including GP services and specialist healthcare services.

People were treated with kindness and respect. They were able to see their friends and families when they wanted. There were no restrictions on when friends and families could visit the service and visitors were made welcome by the staff in the home.

People and their relatives had been consulted about the care they wanted to be provided. Staff supported the choices people made about their care and people were offered the opportunity to pursue and maintain their interests and hobbies.

There were systems in place for handling and resolving complaints. People we spoke with and their relatives were aware of how to raise any concerns they may have.

The provider and registered manager had systems in place to enable them to continually assess and monitor the quality of the services they provided.  They had taken steps to address issues identified such as vacancies within the staff team and odours within the home.

Inspection areas



Updated 21 December 2015

The service was safe.

People felt safe living within the service. Staff knew how to recognise signs of potential abuse and how to report their concerns.

Vacancies in the staff team were managed to ensure people received the care and support they needed and wanted.



Updated 21 December 2015

The service was effective.

People were helped to eat and drink enough to stay well and received all the healthcare attention they needed.

People were supported to make their own decisions and appropriate systems were in place to support those people who lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Staff had received training and were supported to provide the care people needed.



Updated 21 December 2015

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and respect and staff took account of their wishes and preferences.

People’s privacy and dignity were maintained.



Updated 21 December 2015

The service was responsive.

People had been consulted about their needs and wishes and they were able to enjoy activities and interests of their choice.

People, and their relatives, knew how to raise concerns and make a complaint if they needed to.



Updated 21 December 2015

The service was well-led.

There was an open and inclusive atmosphere within the home.

People and their relatives were able to voice their opinions and views about the services they received.

Systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided for

people were in place and quality checks were carried out regularly.