The Gables Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider collaborated with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm, and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive, and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

We found areas of concern when inspecting the home which could impact on people’s care and safety. We raised concerns about safety of the premises and access to the home. We raised concerns about trailing wires and radiator covers not being suitably maintained. We raised concerns about storage of wheelchairs in the lounge. We raised concerns about the accurate recording of water temperatures.

People using the service raised concerns about uneven paths. The home had recently had some refurbishment and was mostly clean, with flooring intact, no odours and was well maintained. The kitchen was awarded five stars by environmental health services recently but was due for refurbishment which was planned in the budget. A pathway had been created at the front of the house and was to be extended to round the back of the property making the outside space more accessible.

The provider ensured there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They received supervision and development. However, people’s experiences told us that staff did not always work well as a team and provide a consistently timely service.

During our observations and review of records the service we concluded that there were enough staff for people’s needs and despite under occupancy the registered manager had maintained the staffing levels and had additional staff within the home to provide activities. The home did not use agency staff and did not have any staff vacancies. However, people consistently told us that the home did not seem to be able to get the ‘right staffing levels,’ We observed a lot of people in their room and not getting the social stimulation we might expect. The registered manager said this was people’s choice, but we found it unusual to have so few people socialise particularly at mealtimes.

People told us: They had to wait to go to the toilet, some-times of the day were busier than others and the staff always seem so busy. Another said, “but they don’t have time to sit and talk to you. Whilst this is people’s perception we found from staff records that there were issues around teamwork and staff morale which was being addressed which would hopefully improve peoples’ experiences.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.