The Gables

Updated 17 July 2025

Date of Assessment: 13 August 2025 to 18 August 2025. The service is a residential care home providing support to 23 older people, at the time of the inspection, some of whom were living with dementia.

We found 4 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, premises, dignity and respect and governance.

The inspection was prompted in part by notification of an incident where someone had received an injury at The Gables. This inspection did not examine the circumstances of that incident. However, the information shared with CQC about the incident indicated potential concerns about the management of risk of harm to people. This inspection examined those risks.

People could not be assured they were protected from avoidable harm as the provider failed to complete effective checks on the physical environment. When risks to people were known, or suspected, the provider failed to assess these risks to minimise the risk of harm. People were at risk of communicable illnesses as the provider failed to complete effective checks on their infection prevention and control practices.

People did not always have their dignity or independence promoted by those supporting them or the management team. Not everyone felt able to raise concerns about their care and support, despite the provider having systems in place for resident’s meetings. Not everyone felt engaged about decisions regarding where they lived or their care.

The provider had quality monitoring systems in place. However, these were ineffective in identifying improvements needed or driving positive change. People felt there were enough staff, but the interactions were sometimes ‘task focused’ and lacked individual person first interactions. Not everyone was responded to in a timely way.

People received their medicines as prescribed although greater detail was needed regarding some covert, and as required medicines, to ensure people received these safely.

Staff were safely recruited and felt supported by the management team who listened to them and acted on their suggestions.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Updated 17 July 2025

People gave mixed feedback and had differing experiences of their care and support. Despite our findings people generally felt safe, and they received their medicines when they needed them. They found staff to be kind but there were some instances where they felt staff rushed them and were heavy handed when assisting them. One person said, “Some staff are friendly and gentle but others I have to tell to be gentle”. Another person told us staff, “…Manhandle you and can rush you.”

Generally, people felt there were enough staff to meet their needs although there were instances where this was inconsistent. One person told us, “Staff were good at answering call bells.” However, we saw 1 person was in physical discomfort and requested staff to support them to make them more comfortable. We saw this person had to wait until staff were available and was later told they would, “move them when they did the toilet round.” This was not responsive to the person’s needs and did not act to ease their discomfort.

People knew who the management team were but could not recall being involved in decisions about their home and did not know if there were any plans for improvements or what they were. The provider had residents’ meetings in place. The provider told us they recognised these meetings were not the most effective way to engage people, but were yet to introduce an alternative way of doing this.

People could not recall being involved in the completion of their care and support plans. One person told us they left any decisions about their care with their family member. The management team told us they recognised people’s views were not fully recorded, when care plans were reviewed, as conversations were informal and often spread out across the month. They were looking at different ways to engage and capture people’s individual views on their care.

Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. We used a structured observation tool to assess whether they received good care. This showed us instances where people received positive and engaging interactions with staff.