The Gables

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were person centred and included key relevant information about each individual person, including their communication needs. People’s backgrounds and history was included in the care plans.

Families told us they were able to view the care plans if they wanted to. Some families told us that they were consulted on changes to their relatives care plan in a timely manner.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People and their families told us that they were very satisfied with the level and quality of care being provided.

People had access to healthcare services when needed. We observed professionals visiting people during our visits to the service.

People’s own rooms were large with appropriate dementia useable furniture, however there were missed opportunities in developing the quiet lounge areas to ensure these provided appropriate dementia friendly space.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Care plans reflected people’s communication needs in line with the Accessible Information Standards.

Families felt they were well informed in relation to activities and plans that were happening within the home.

Information was displayed to inform people about raising a complaint as well as important safeguarding information.

Some families told us that they felt there were protected mealtimes in place and that this was inconvenient to them. We discussed this with the registered manager who informed us this was not the case and that families could visit during mealtimes. The provider told us that they will provide clear information and guidance around this to people and their families.

The provider made 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 care and told them what had changed as a result.

Families told us that they were aware of how to raise a complaint if they needed to and generally this would involve speaking with a member of staff or with the manager.

Families told us they were not generally aware of a complaints policy and had not seen a copy of this.

Staff told us that they used surveys to gather feedback from people and families on a regular basis.

Compliments and feedback are collated and shared with staff.

A family member told us, “I wouldn't want my relative to be anywhere else.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The home provided ramp access to the building and wide corridors and living areas.

The home had two lifts available to allow access to the upper floor if required.

People had their own appropriate moving and handling equipment.

We saw that appropriate referrals were made to specialist services where needed, for example falls services and CHESS (care home education support services) team.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff and the management were aware of barriers people may face in accessing support and doing things which they enjoyed.

The provider had an equality, diversity and inclusion policy to help ensure that people did not receive unfair treatment based on their protected characteristics. Staff received training in this area to enable them to identify issues and ensure people’s rights were protected.

Families told us they were confident their relative was treated fairly, and their rights were fully respected. We observed staff treating people as individuals, enabling them to experience equity in outcomes.

People were 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.

People were supported to plan for important life changes including their care at end of life. Where relevant these needs had been discussed and recorded in care plans.

Families told us they had been included in these discussions. A family member told us, their relative had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) in place and that they were always involved in decisions about their relative’s care.

Staff worked closely with people, their families and professionals to ensure people received dignified and person-centred care at the end of their life. We received positive feedback about this from other professionals.

Staff received training in end-of-life care.