Gables Nursing 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. This is the first assessment for this service under the new provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 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.

The management team were open and transparent and wanted to drive improvement at the service. Accidents and incidents were reviewed, and lessons were learned which were shared with the staff team through team meetings and discussions. One staff member told us, “The difference now with the home is totally different, not just the environment but the culture.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. We saw evidence of health care professional involvement. One health care professional told us, “We have good relationships, the service improves people’s wellbeing, we have had positive relationships with the provider.”

The provider worked 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.

Staff were trained and understood their roles in relation to safeguarding. Staff told us they knew how to raise a concern and were confident their concerns would be listened to and acted upon by management. One staff member said, “I wouldn’t hesitate to report if I had any concerns.” Another staff member said, “I do not have any concerns at all here.”

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.

People told us the staff have the right skills to keep them safe. One person said, “If I need anything, I just ask. There is always someone about.” One relative said, “They ran into [name of person] room when we accidentally set off the alarm in her room. So, I know if my relative needed something they would be there. They care for her like we do.”

Staff told us they were aware of the risks people faced and care plans contained clear information about people’s needs and how to meet them safely.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People had appropriate equipment in place where required, equipment such as zimmer frames were always within easy reach of people. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan(PEEPs) were in place for people.

The service was undergoing significant refurbishment within the home. This had been appropriately risk assessed, and people and their relatives had been kept up to date of ongoing work. This did not impact on the care provided. One staff member said, “The home is having a lot of work done to improve the environment but most importantly, to make sure the home is safe for people.”

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff were required to undertake pre-employment checks before they started working with people. There had been some staffing changes under the new provider, and the management team informed us they were building a stable team with staff that shared the provider’s values. We received consistent feedback from staff about the staffing levels. Staff felt there were enough staff on shift to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. A relative told us, “Yes there are enough staff here. [There is] always someone around.” People and their relatives told us they felt safe. A relative told us, “There’s always someone there all the time. They help [person] get drinks and everything [name of person] needs. They don’t ignore [my relative]. I know [they are] loved there. There is enough staff.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff received training in infection control and no concerns were raised by staff about the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).

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.

Effective systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Records showed all medicines were in stock and none had been missed.There was clear guidance in place for people who received their medicines covertly and this was being followed by staff.Time-specific medicines were given at the correct time.

Protocols provided clear guidance for staff on when to administer ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines.

Clear instructions were recorded for each topical medication prescribed. Body maps showed when, where and how often creams should be applied and were signed by staff as given.

People received their medicines at the right time. Records showed all staff who administered medicines had completed up to date training and their competency to support people with medicines was assessed.