Archived: Gables Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

Improvements had been made in relation to good governance. However, the provider needed to demonstrate further improvements and to sustain these, specifically in relation to quality assurance and provider oversight systems and processes to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. The provider remained in breach of legal regulation in relation to regulation 17.

This service scored 43 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The manager was working to embed a shared vision, and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement.

Staff meetings were taking place regularly, and staff said they felt able to contribute, were listened to and valued. The manager commented on the importance of “listening, validating staff feelings and boosting their confidence.” They said, “We talk about the vision in staff meetings, policy of the month and lessons learned. I give feedback and listen to staff which wasn’t in place before. There are lots of bridges to be built.” A staff member said, “The new manager speaks to us like we are people, we’ve never had that before, it used to be ‘I’m the manager you do as I say’. He values the staff and is building trust which is taking time.”

The senior leaders commented that one of the values of the organisation was that staff feel valued and empowering them to contribute. They said, “We now have a team that are proud to work in the home, are very engaged and know residents extremely well.”

A staff survey had been completed in May 2025. Staff responses were positive and there were high scores for teamwork and the atmosphere and support. The survey was yet to be formally analysed by the provider.

The current home manager had an inclusive approach and understood the context in which they delivered care, and support. They had the skills, knowledge, and credibility to lead the staff team effectively and did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

There had been two home managers since the last inspection. Staff said they felt morale had improved, stating they felt, “listened to and valued” by the current home manager. Staff also commented, “I can trust the manager and we have a good relationship” and “It’s taking time to build up trust, there’s been so many managers, but we are getting there.” We were also told, “It all boils down to management for me, we didn’t know who to follow and were told different things from different people within the organisation. We now know who to follow.”

Staff meetings were taking place with the current manager and minutes evidenced co-production, inclusion and follow up on actions from previous meetings. This was not evident in some earlier staff meetings.

The manager fostered a culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they were listened to and could raise any concerns, issues or ideas in staff meetings or discuss things one to one with the manager. Their comments included, “We are included and are listened to,” and “We can get things off our mind, the manager helps with problems and will solve things with you.”

The manager was working to embed an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The manager said, “Employee of the month wasn’t in place before I started so the deputy manager and I have reintroduced it ourselves. We did ‘getting to know you’ forms with the staff, with their likes on so we can use this information to celebrate the staff.” They added, “We are also celebrating birthdays, the basics go a long way.”

An Equal Opportunities Policy was in place and had a review date of January 2022. It was referenced at the last inspection that this had not been reviewed, and it remained the case at this inspection.

The provider had introduced new systems of accountability and governance since the last inspection. These had improved oversight, however the system needed to be fully embedded to demonstrate sustainable improvement.

There were variances in the level of detail recorded in audits. Some documented a summary of information reviewed which provided an explanation for the findings whilst others did not. Some action plans identified the staff who were responsible for completing actions and a target date for completion, some didn’t. Some audits included an update on whether actions were completed, and an explanation if target dates were missed others didn’t. The director of quality said, “They are evidence-based audits rather than tick boxes. The quality support managers are working with staff to improve the recording of evidence used in the evidence-based audits.”

A validation process was in place, whereby actions were ‘validated’ for completion and progress. This was not always completed.

A quality assurance policy was in place with an issue date of March 2023 and a review date of March 2025. It was not evident that the policy had been reviewed alongside the introduction of the new quality assurance process. The director of quality said, “I will have to look at that.”

There were some ongoing areas for improvement that had not been fully implemented, including staff supervision and appraisal.

The provider hadn’t informed CQC of changes to the service in a timely manner.

The provider continued to work in partnership with key stakeholders and were no longer being supported within the Responding to and Addressing Serious Concerns process with the local authority safeguarding and commissioning teams.

Whilst some improvements had been made since the last inspections, they needed to be fully embedded and sustained.

The provider’s systems for learning and improvement were still not always effective.

Some improvements had been made by the manager but there continued to be shortfalls in the provider’s processes for care planning and risk management, inclusion, medicine records, staff supervision and appraisal, and embedding of the quality assurance system.

The manager was focusing on continuous learning, and improvement and they encouraged and empowered staff to contribute ideas and learn from incidents and concerns.