The Gables Residential Home

Updated 30 June 2026

We carried out this assessment on 03 August 2026. This service was previously rated good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continued to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

Some immediate risks to people’s safety were identified and fed back to the registered manager. The front door was wedged open, and the kitchen door and side door were also open. This was addressed immediately. It was an exceptionally hot day, and no one was subject to a deprivation of liberty although a number of applications had been made. An open front door could expose people to unnecessary risk. The registered manager confirmed the door is now locked, and the registered manager confirmed they would consider how the restriction would be reviewed in line with people’s needs.

We found some radiator covers were loose or coming away from the wall, one had a hole in it. Some pipework was exposed but cool to touch. This should be risk assessed as pipework getting hot could contribute to avoidable scalding. Remedial actions were confirmed as completed by the registered manager and added to the daily health and safety audit. However, this issue had not been previously identified by the provider.

Whilst we considered the environment mostly safe, we felt it could be more personalised to suit the needs of people using the service and the rear garden more accessible. Following on from our inspection the registered manager called a resident meeting to discuss issues raised from the inspection. Further personalisation of communal rooms is being undertaken.

We found the home to be in good decorative order with no unpleasant smells or ill-fitting flooring. Falls within the service were low, as were recorded incidents. Some extensive refurbishments had been undertaken and planned within the budget.

We inspected environmental risk assessments, audits and daily walk about's. These were generally robust. Night audits were not in place, but the registered manager confirmed these are now in place.

The provider told us they ensured they had appropriate staffing levels. They said the home was fully staffed, and they rarely used agency or temporary staff and were recruiting bank staff to cover holidays etc. However, people told us they had concerns about staffing levels and staff often appeared busy and rushed. We discussed this with the registered manager as allocated staffing levels appeared generous. For example, one person told us “The staff always seem to be very busy. They help me to get washed and dressed. They don’t rush me, but they are always saying that they have another job to do.” Comments included staff not being replaced when they left and staff being under pressure at times of the day and, or weekends. We did not identify a direct impact on care, but people’s experiences were variable across the week.

We have asked the registered manager to consider the redeployment of staff and whether all staff were working effectively together. Service records, such as staff meeting minutes indicated ‘teamwork’ was an area for development and staff were being supported to work more effectively.

Throughout our observations people received unhurried care and there was the opportunity to take part in activities which were organised daily. However, on the day of our inspection a lot of people were in their bedrooms for most of the day and this included lunch time when the dining room remained empty. A few people chose to eat in the lounge. We were concerned about the risk of social isolation and why people would choose not to socialise even for some of the day. We found the environment whilst well maintained lacked stimulation. The lounge by the front door remained unused and the second lounge had day chairs in a row with a number of wheelchairs also not in use and lined up with a clear lack of storage.

Staff interacting with people did not offer to put the television on or music and activities provided were limited with no obvious support from care staff. Whilst the activity programme showed external entertainers fortnightly these were mainly the same entertainers. We spoke with the activities staff who had not had any specific training around activity provision, and we suggested to the registered manager this was necessary to help enhance activity provision. We suggested they access ‘Skills for care’ to consider additional training.

Staff received adequate training and were supported to develop and undertake additional qualifications in care and develop themselves professionally. and staff recruitment was satisfactory.

Staff felt well supported by their manager and training records and supervisions showed there were formal processes to support staff and staff were given the opportunity to give feedback on the service they provided and any improvements they would like to see. Whilst night staff were provided with the same access to support, night audits would help provide additional assurances that care provided over 24 hours was of a sufficiently high standard.

Medicines were administered in line with people’s needs and were well organised. The were two medicine trolleys which seemed excessive for the size of the home.

Staff told us people were well supported with regular access to health appointments such as chiropody and dentistry and had built good relations with the GP practice and nurses. However, we were told by visiting professionals and staff, that some people had been at the service along time and their dependency levels were increasing as their needs became greater. Whilst staff felt their training covered the basics, professionals commented on gaps in staff knowledge and the need for up-skilling staff to help them respond appropriately in identifying and acting upon changes in people's conditions.

Staff felt well supported by their manager and training records and supervisions showed there were formal processes to support staff and staff were given the opportunity to give feedback on the service they provided and any improvements they felt necessary. Whilst night staff were provided with the same access to support, night audits would help provide additional assurances that care provided over 24 hours was of a sufficiently high standard.

Infection control and standards of cleanliness were good.

The registered manager completed regular audits and reviews but had not identified some of the areas of concern we did, the provider offered valuable support but external auditing and more opportunities for the registered manager and staff to ‘network’ with other care homes may benefit the service as this was a standalone care home.

We found that staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Unnecessary restrictions were not in place. People had communication plans in place to support staff in understanding how people expressed themselves.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were not in place or considered necessary although a number of applications had been made but not yet approved. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. We advised the registered manager to consider each’ decision required in its own merit,’

The registered manager helped ensure staff were supported to reflect on their practices and incidents etc were appropriately recorded. Staff understood how to raise concerns and actions they should take if they suspected abuse. The safeguarding log did not show clearly if a notification had been raised or how it had been resolved.

About the service

The service is a care home. There were 15 people living at the service on the ground floor purpose-built accommodation. There were a number of vacant rooms, including a room on the 1st floor.

Who the service is for

The service supports older people requiring residential care.

Updated 30 June 2026

People benefitted from living in a smaller service which had a high ratio of staff and a good number of allocated activity hours. The home had spacious communal areas, but bedrooms were mostly on the small side, and the corridors were narrow which might impact on who the home could accommodate particularly if people required 2-1 assistance from staff around their moving and handling needs

People were mostly living without dementia, and we observed a small group of people socialising in the lounge. However, most people stayed in their rooms across the day and had lunch in their room. The registered manager told us people were asked and encouraged to join in different activities across the day. We spoke with people about why they chose to stay in their rooms; and they told us they lived without restriction and could come and go as they pleased. However, one person said, “It would just be nice to have more things to do.” Another said, “The staff will come and tell me what is on. I usually go to the music activity which is once a month. I don’t join in with anything else. I like to stay in my room and knit. I like to be active.” We viewed the activity plan which we considered was not sufficiently robust or adequately adapted to people’s individual needs. The hours allocated to activities were generous, but activity staff needed support to ensure activities met people's needs and care staff engaged with people in a more personable way.

Following our inspection the registered manager immediately enrolled activity staff on appropriate training to help them develop their role. Staff had also requested a ‘virtual dementia tour,’ which would give them an insight into what people may experience when living with dementia. We also discussed staff and relatives becoming dementia friends and being able to access free resources and training. Whilst people living with dementia needs were being met in a smaller setting, we found recording around patterns of behaviour and distress could be more robust to help inform staff about the appropriate care and support.

People told us they felt safe: “I do feel safe here. They have a weekly fire drill, and they tell you what is happening. They check on you at night. People are around to help you which is better than if you were at home on your own.” A relative told us “I think they are really safe here. They were falling a lot at home but since they have been here, they haven’t had any falls which is fantastic. People are here 24/7 so I know if anything happens it will be dealt with.” A person using the service added, “I do feel safe here. It is a safe area around the home, and the staff will always come quickly if you need help.”

We raised concerns about security and access and relatives confirmed lapsed security. This needed careful consideration and it is necessary to balance the freedoms of individuals and restrictions necessary to keep people safe.

Admissions to the home were monitored carefully to ensure the right fit and compatibility. A relative told us, “The manager went to see my relative. She was so understanding. She wears her heart on her sleeve. We were able to ask anything, and the move went very well” Another said, “when I went to look round the home I saw the staff and the residents laughing. It seemed a happy home”. Whilst we found bedrooms a little on the small side, people told us they were happy with their bedrooms and they were clean, personalised with no odours. One person said, “my room is very nice, and I think the premises are very smart. I can get around the home on my own with my walker so that is good. I can go outside but I need someone with me in case I fall” Another said,” maintenance people will come and sort things out in your room.”

People told us they did not have any concerns and were able to raise issues. However, one person commented on having limited contact with their key worker. Resident meetings were held but we could not always see the outcome of issues people had raised. For example, one person said they had requested more than one shower a week and others had agreed and despite staff saying we will see what we can do they said this had not happened.

Relatives said communication was good and care plans discussed. One said,” We go through the care plan on an annual basis. If I feel that anything needs changing in the meantime I send an email, we have a quick chat.” People using the service were less clear if they had access to their care plans or if their needs were discussed with them. People did have opportunities for discussion including completing surveys and residents’ meetings as well as seeing the registered manager often.

We asked people about meals and their dining experience and again feedback was mixed. One said,” The food is good and bad. Today it is a hot day, and they have offered two hot meals. It would have been nice to have something cold. The cook used to offer one hot and one cold and that went down very well but she seems to have forgotten to do that now.” Another said,” We get far too many carrots. Last week we seemed to have carrots every day. We have discussed this in the forum, but we will have to raise it again.”

People told us there were choices and they got plenty to drink but their feedback reflected people’s experiences are not always reflected in the care provided. For example, when we asked about whether staff were caring the majority said yes but a few identified a few areas of concern. One said,” I think the care is very good. The staff are all really kind to me.” “I think the care is very good. They couldn’t do any more for you. Most of the staff are alright. Some can get a bit grumpy with you. Most of them will try and do what you want. You just have to get on with it”. Another said, “One or two of them like a good natter when they help you but then that holds up other people that need help.”