Archived: Gables Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

Improvements had been made since the last inspection, and the provider was no longer in breach of legal regulations in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care records lacked evidence that people, those with lasting power of attorney or advocates were involved in the planning of their care. Delivery of care was person centred, and staff involved people in day-to-day decision making.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Gaps and inconsistencies had not been identified or addressed which meant there was a risk people’s needs had not been fully assessed and understood.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There remained limited evidence of consideration to the Accessible Information Standard. Staff told us, “I’ve never seen any easy read documents.”

Relatives told us there was good verbal communication from the care staff. Comments included, “The care staff are very good at letting me know if there’s anything planned like medical appointments, or if the doctors been in and seen her”. Another relative said, “The staff are very helpful, I asked recently if she still gets weighed regularly. They explained how people’s needs are assessed and colour coded, so she is weighed regularly and the result recorded.”

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their day-to-day care, but they were not involved in care planning and risk management.

Two resident and relatives’ meetings had been held since the manager had been in post. Minutes included an action plan. The manager said, “I plan to do them monthly until trust has built up” and “If people don’t attend, I can share highlights of the meeting and any actions.”

Since January 2025 different surveys were completed each month, which included one for relatives and one for people living at the home.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Care planning and risk management had improved since the last inspection. However, gaps and inconsistencies in documentation remained which meant the provider had not ensured an accurate and complete record of people’s care was available.

The provider did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staf knew people well and understood their needs however the involvement of people, those with lasting power of attorney and/or advocates being actively involved in decisions about care was not always recorded.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Care plans relating to future plans were not in place. The manager had taken steps to improve this in relation to end of life care and was seeking involvement from people and appropriate others.