The Gables

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to treating people with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not always treated with kindness, empathy, compassion, or with respect for their privacy and dignity. For example, one person was not supported by staff in an environment which promoted their dignity and until our inspection visit action had not been taken to promote this person’s dignity. In other areas of the home people were expected to access a garden area where clinical waste was unsafely stored and to eat from tables which were worn and in need of replacement. We raised our concerns with the provider who acted rapidly to correct the issues we found.

People gave us mixed responses about staff. One person said, “Some staff are kind, but some are bullish, they manhandle you and can rush you.” Another person told us “Some staff are friendly and gentle but others I have to tell to be gentle.” Whereas a third person told us staff were “Kind.” Our observations of care reflected the mixed feedback from people regarding staff interactions.

We received positive feedback from healthcare partners with respect of how staff treated people. One healthcare partner said, “Interactions overheard between staff and residents were positive and supportive, even when staff were unaware of being observed.” They went on to say, “staff seem to know residents well. They use their name, reassure those that are confused.” Another healthcare partner said the care the care they observed, while visiting had been good and they had no concerns with the care home.

People were not always treated as individuals. The service did not always take account of people’s personal preferences. There were toiletries stored in a communal shower room. We asked a member of the management team about these, and they told us they were communal toiletries which they used for everyone. They confirmed there was no personal or individual consideration to people’s preferences regarding their toiletries, in this area. They stated the staff use what is in the shower room at the time. This approach was devaluing and failed to demonstrate people were treated as individuals. However, people’s care and support plans were mainly individual to them, except for a few omissions regarding specific needs and confusing instruction to staff. These plans documented people’s culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Including, but not limited to, age, disability and ethnicity. People told us they felt the staff knew them well on a personal level.

People did not feel consistently engaged by the provider regarding their independence, choice or control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People gave us mixed feedback. Some told us they felt they had choice regarding meals and activities whilst others felt their choices regarding times for waking or choice of attire were at times directed by the staff supporting them. One person told us they were regularly asked by staff if they wanted to go to bed early which did not meet their preferences. This person felt this constant asking was more for the staff convenience rather than considering what they wanted. However, another person described what they liked to eat, and their meals were adapted to respect their decisions.

People gave us mixed responses regarding the activities offered at The Gables. One person told us, “Last week there were some church people here and we sang hymns, it was lovely.” Another told us they had received a one-on-one pamper session and had their nails done which they enjoyed. We saw activities where people were encouraged in movement to music and games. However, 1 person felt staff didn’t have the time to do activities with them and another felt the activities offered were to general and didn’t engage everyone. We saw people were engaged by staff and the activities coordinator at this inspection and had options to be involved in activities.

People were not consistently responded to in the moment to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. One-person informed staff on more than one occasion they were uncomfortable and needed support to reposition themselves. We intervened and asked staff about this, and they informed us there was a ‘toilet round soon and they will be repositioned at that time.” However, following us speaking to staff we saw the person received support. At other times we saw people were responded to in a timely way. We saw 2 people becoming upset. Staff were available and supported each person in an engaging way to express themselves which resolved the situation to the individual’s satisfaction. It is recognised sometimes there are additional pressures on staff but responding to people’s immediate needs was inconsistent. One person told us, “I said something, but I don’t like to rock the boat.” This lack of consistency from staff towards people and their needs put them at risk of being disengaged with their care and support.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. All the staff members we spoke with told us they felt supported by the provider and were encouraged to raise any concerns or issues in a timely way. Staff members felt the providers policies and procedures supported their individual wellbeing. One staff member told us they were encouraged to complete additional qualifications in care which they found to be motivating. Another staff member told us they received discounted public travel by the provider which helped them and made them feel valued.