The Gables

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance at the service.

This service scored 62 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

There has been a new registered manager in post since December 2025. Another registered manager no longer works at the home.

Staff told us that they felt the new registered manager was “positive and proactive.”

Staff told us that they felt there was a culture of caring within the home and felt supported to continuously learn and develop. A staff member told us, “I am learning all the time.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager is currently supported in the role by a deputy manager.

Staff told us that they felt supported by the current management team and felt listened to when they raised issues.

Families told us that they felt comfortable and confident in talking to management about issues they had, however not all families knew who the new registered manager was.

We found the current management team did demonstrate an understanding of their responsibilities under duty of candour.

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

Staff told us that they would not hesitate to raise any concerns about people and their care needs and felt confident to do so. Staff told us they were aware of the whistleblowing policy.

Staff meetings occurred regularly across the differing job roles within the home. Full team meetings were in place to support the attendance of staff from across differing shift patterns and times.

Staff meeting minutes evidenced that there was good communication, sharing of information and an opportunity to discuss lessons learnt.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The workforce was predominantly from the local area and included staff who had moved over from similar services.

Some staff were from overseas and were recruited as part of a sponsorship scheme through the provider.

The provider did not have a shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Although there were policies in place, not all policies were specific to the current provider, with one policy naming the previous provider.

Although the home had a strong focus on supporting people with dementia including a suitable environment and furnishing, there was no clear dementia strategy in place for the home. This means that peoples ongoing dementia needs were not being supported or planned for.

We found concerns about the security of information and data protection. We discussed this feedback with the provider who assured us that this would be addressed.

Additionally, a laptop was left open which stored confidential information, and we found confidential documents in the communal lounge area.

We found there were regular audits taking place, however the audits had not identified or addressed the concerns we found during inspection.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

We found good evidence of partnership working with local health professionals including GP’s, CHESS team and district nurses.

Staff and families told us that there were good links with the community which they felt was positive and beneficial. This included local schools and local day centre attendees visiting the home.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Staff had the chance to discuss and share their views with their line manager through individual supervision sessions or team meetings. Some staff told us that they felt their suggestions were not always listened to or acted upon. The staff training matrix demonstrated a wide range of corporate and mandatory training for each job role. Some staff told us that they found it difficult to fit in all the training required of them. A staff member told us, “It’s difficult to keep on top of it all when you’re working, trying to find the time.”

The Registered manager was undertaking the Level 5 Health and Social Care qualification and was able to share learning from this with the wider staff team.