- Care home
Gables
Assessment report published 11 November 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
The Gables is a residential care home, registered to provide accommodation, personal care and support for up to 7 people. There were 7 people living at the service at the time of this assessment. The service was clean, homely and personalised to reflect people’s individual preferences and interests.
Who the service is for
This service is for people with a learning disability and/or autism. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence, and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 26 October 2026. This service was previously rated as 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 continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
Staff were safely recruited and were provided with appropriate training for their roles. Staff consistently spoke positively about training and support available to them. For example, 3 staff members told us about career progression and different development opportunities being available to them. One staff member said, “I was really inspired by the registered managers hands on approach, and I have been empowered to reach my potential.” Another staff member said, “I try and take something away from each training session, I learned a lot from the diabetes training that has not only improved my knowledge at work but improved my own health.”
People told us they felt safe living in the service. Safeguarding concerns were identified and escalated appropriately and leaders used learning from incidents to improve practice. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and recorded. Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. They were knowledgeable about what concerns they would need to report and to whom internally. Staff also told us the provider had a safeguarding champion as well as the registered manager they can report to and that they could speak openly without fear of judgment. However, improvements were needed to broaden staff knowledge about who to report concerns to externally such as the local authority or CQC. We shared this with the provider during feedback who assured us they would provide additional training in this area.
People received their medicines when they needed them. We observed staff supporting people safely with medicines with a person-centred approach that was consistent with information in peoples’ support plans. The service worked in partnership with district nurses who also support with medicines at this service for 1 person. Staff had very good knowledge of people’s medicines. Staff were able to explain the processes for ordering, administering and returning medicines. Staff understood the importance of understanding people’s non-verbal communication in relation to their medicines. For example, non-verbal signs of pain or discomfort and non-verbal indicators that a person is refusing their medicines. The service also worked in partnership with their pharmacy who regularly carried out compliance audits.
The registered manager explained their assessment process and said, “Ideally people would visit the service for short sessions while we assess their suitability for our environment. In some cases where people have moved from a hospital setting this has not always been possible. Where it has not been possible, we have worked closely with the person’s family, inviting them to view the service and help create a care plan. One of the most important things I consider is people’s compatibility with people who already live here. Care plans are reviewed with people and their families where appropriate.” Families confirmed they have been involved in care planning and information has been shared with them. One family member said, “The care plan is actively monitored and reviewed with input from us.” Another said, “They always keep me updated.”
All information was available to staff on how to support people. However, we found some information was in supplementary care planning documents with a reference in the main care plan, signposting staff to the supplementary documents rather than having all information in a central care document. We discussed this with the registered manager who was open to our feedback and suggestion that all information should be in the main care plan. People were not negatively impacted because staff knew people’s needs very well and staff knew where to access the relevant documentation which was up to date and reflected people’s needs.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
People and their relatives told us they felt listened to and were confident raising concerns or sharing feedback. House meetings and satisfaction surveys provided opportunities for people to have their views heard, and people described the management team as approachable and available when needed.
Staff spoke about promoting people’s rights, independence and respecting their choices. One staff member said, “I support people with dignity, and respect their needs and wishes. I interact to engage them in activities, so they are not isolated.” Another staff member said, “I make sure things are in people’s best interest and least restrictive, involve them in all decisions. We do not take their right or independence from them.” People were also visited by an independent advocate who told us they had no concerns about the service.
People were supported by caring and compassionate staff who promoted choices in a way people understood. Staff spoke to and about people with warmth, acknowledged their individuality and respected their dignity. Staff spoke about wanting to improve people’s independence, but this was sometimes limited by people’s disinterest and gave cooking as an example. We quoted staff saying, “I love working here.” And “The residents are brilliant.”
People received person centred support from staff who demonstrated an ongoing commitment to learning in order to maximise their knowledge of people’s individual needs. This included catheter care, diabetes management, epilepsy care and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Staff demonstrated their knowledge of dysphagia through the responses to our questions and also through the practices we observed during lunch time. Staff knew who was at risk of choking and how their foods should be prepared. There was a team approach to ensuring mealtimes were safe and people’s needs were met.
Leaders promoted a positive, compassionate and inclusive culture that placed people at the centre of the service. Staff understood their roles and felt supported. Systems were in place to encourage learning, reflection and continuous improvement, and leaders were open and responsive. The management team acted promptly on feedback provided during the inspection and demonstrated a commitment to improving outcomes for people.
Governance systems were in place and were effective in identifying areas requiring improvement.
People's experience of this service
During the inspection, we asked people and their relatives for feedback about the service. Where appropriate, we spoke directly with people about their care and experiences. Some people were unable to tell us about their experiences, so we used our observations and feedback from relatives to help us understand the quality of care they received.
People and those important to them spoke positively about the care provided. Throughout the inspection, we observed staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. We observed staff smiling and offering hand over hand support to eat lunch. We observed staff offering activities and supporting people to get ready to access the community.
People told us they were happy living at the service, and relatives consistently said people were safe and well cared for. People and their relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. One relative said, “My [relative] has been in other care homes, and this is by far the best placement my [relative] has had.” Another relative said, “I am 100 percent happy with The Gables. My [relative] has settled in very well and is happy, they have been exceedingly good with complex needs. Communication has been excellent; the staff have kept me informed and included me regarding my [relatives] care plans and medical needs. The home has a very warm, welcoming feel to it staff are very friendly and approachable, the residents all appear to be very happy and well cared for.”
A stakeholder for the service said, “I regularly speak with and engage with people at The Gables, and they are generally happy and have not raised any significant concerns with me. If a client raises a concern, or if I identify an issue myself, I discuss this with the management team, and matters are dealt with promptly and efficiently. One area I raised with the service previously was the limited number of in-house activities available to clients. Following a discussion with the team, there has been a noticeable improvement, with more activities now being provided to better meet people’s needs. Overall, my experience of working with The Gables has been positive, and I have no concerns to raise currently.”
Two people showed us around their home, showing us communication aids, photos, and their rooms. People’s rooms were personalised and homely, some had single beds while others had double beds.
People we observed were happy during the assessment, laughing and smiling with staff and it was clear they had formed positive relationships with staff who knew them well. People were relaxed and interactions were kind, caring and jovial. One person said, “I am happy here, I feel safe and staff joke with me.”
People told us they were supported to access their local community and take part in activities they enjoyed. However,we felt activities and community access could be improved on for some people. For example, we were told that sometimes people go for a drive as an activity. It was not always clear if this was a meaningful activity that people fully understood or benefited from. We were also told some people do not wish to participate in activities that take place in house.
Despite our views on activities people, their families and staff did not raise this as a concern. The provider listened to our feedback and acknowledged where people decline activities the provider needs to evidence what has been offered, how it was received by the person and if there was any positive engagement.