You are here

The Gables Nursing Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 February 2018

This inspection took place on 11 December 2017 and was unannounced. The service was previously inspected in October 2016 and at that time, we found the service met all of the legal requirements.

The Gables Nursing Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The Gables Nursing Home is located in a residential area of Pudsey in Leeds, and is close to local amenities. The home provides nursing, residential and dementia care to a maximum of 23 older people.

The service has two registered managers, both were present at this inspection. 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.

Areas of the home required repair and refurbishment and the provider did not have a plan in place to address these issues. We have made a recommendation about this.

Activities provided at the service did not always suit people's care and support needs. We have made a recommendation about this.

People received care and support from staff who were appropriately trained and confident to meet their individual needs. Staff protected people's privacy and dignity. Staff received one-to-one supervision meetings with their line manager. Staff felt supported and listened to.

People's needs were assessed and their care plans provided staff with clear guidance about how they wanted their individual needs met. Care plans were personalised and contained appropriate risk assessments to protect people from harm as much as possible in their daily lives. They were regularly reviewed and amended as necessary to ensure they reflected people's changing support needs.

There were policies and procedures in place to assist staff on how to safeguard people from harm and abuse. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs. Staff told us they had completed training in safe working practices. We saw people were supported with patience, consideration and kindness and their privacy and dignity was respected.

Fire prevention processes were in place to keep people safe in the event of a fire on the premises. All servicing of utilities, systems and equipment had been carried out by the appropriate professionals. Some areas of the home required better cleaning. Accidents and incidents were investigated to make sure that any causes were identified and action was taken to minimise any risk of reoccurrence.

Thorough recruitment procedures were followed and appropriate pre-employment checks had been made before staff started work, including evidence of identity and satisfactory written references. Appropriate checks were also undertaken to ensure people were suitable to work within the care sector.

Medicines were managed safely in accordance with current regulations and guidance by staff who had received training to help ensure safe practice. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately.

People were supported to make decisions in their best interests. The registered manager and staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were provided with suitable amounts of food and drink and were happy with the meals they received. People's nutritional needs were assessed and records were accurately maintained to ensure people were protected from risks associated with eating and drinking. Where risks to people had been identified, these had been appropriately monitored and referrals made to relevant professionals, where necessary. P

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 13 February 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Cleaning schedules did not cover all required cleaning, We found bathrooms and equipment used to assist people were not always clean.

There were sufficient staff deployed at the home to meet people's needs.

Staff were knowledgeable about the process to be followed if they suspected or witnessed abuse.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored by staff at the home to help minimise the risk of repeated events.

The provider had carried out full recruitment checks to ensure staff were safe to work at the service.

People's medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 February 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and had opportunities to meet with their line manager regularly.

Where people's liberty was restricted or they were unable to make decisions for themselves, staff had followed legal guidance.

People's nutritional needs were assessed and individual dietary needs were met.

People had involvement from healthcare professionals and staff supported them to remain healthy.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 February 2018

The service was caring.

People told us they received a good standard of care and that staff were kind.

People's care and support was delivered in line with their care plans.

People's privacy and dignity was respected. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and were aware of people's individual needs and how to meet them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 February 2018

The service was responsive.

We recommend the provider improves the availability of activities for people.

Where people's needs changed staff ensured they received the correct level of support.

Information about how to make a complaint was available for people and their relatives.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 February 2018

The service was well-led.

People and their relatives had opportunities to give their views about the service.

Staff felt well supported by the registered manager.

The provider had implemented effective systems of quality monitoring and auditing.

The provider was aware of their responsibilities to submit notifications about incidents and significant events to the Care Quality Commission.