- Care home
Archived: The Gables Care Home
We have issued a notice of decision to cancel The Gables Care Home Ltd registration on 09 September 2025 for failing to ensure people received person centred care, failing to ensure people were treated with dignity and respect, failing to ensure appropriate consent was in place, failing to ensure safe care and treatment, failing to ensure people were appropriately safeguarded, failing to ensure good governance was in place, failing to ensure safe and appropriate staffing was in place and failing to ensure fit and proper persons had been safely recruited at The Gables Care Home.
Assessment report published 29 July 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
The Gables Care Home is a residential care home which provides personal care for up to 21 older people, younger adults and people living with a dementia. We assessed all quality statements under the five key questions of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well Led. We completed an onsite assessment at The Gables Care Home on 20, 21 May 2025.
At our last inspection, we identified breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing. At this inspection we found these issued had not been fully addressed. At this inspection we found eight breaches of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care, dignity and respect, consent, safe care and treatment (including medicines), safeguarding, good governance, staffing levels and recruitment.
Feedback on learning culture was mixed, staff knew how to escalate concerns but professionals did not always feel concerns were appropriately escalated. Risks were not always being appropriately managed. Safe practices were not always being followed. The environment was not always safe, meaning any risks had not always been mitigated. Safe staffing levels and safe recruitment practices were not in place. Infection control process were not always safe and medicines were not safely managed.
People and their loved ones were not always involved in assessments of their needs, and we could not always be confident how people’s needs were being assessed/reviewed/monitored. Although people always had enough to eat and drink we were not assured about the quality of food being provided as we found several out-of-date items in the fridge. People’s dietary requirements were not always accurately recorded. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care, though best outcomes were not always achieved. Although staff understood consent, we found there was a lack of documentation in place to support consent. Staff monitored people’s health to try and support healthy living, but this was not always happening as appropriate referrals were not always being made.
Although we witnessed people being treated with kindness and compassion, we found multiple concerns that did not portray the service in this way. People’s privacy and dignity was not always respected. People were not always treated as individuals. Feedback around activities from staff was mixed. Staff, including the manager, did not always respond to people’s immediate needs. Whilst the staff felt the service supported their wellbeing, records did not always support this.
People did not always receive person centred care and records were not always person centred. Appropriate referrals for treatment was not always being made. Feedback from professionals, people and their relatives regarding equity in experiences and outcomeswas mixed. The service was not always easily accessible or safe. The service provided information people could understand, though people’s confidential information was not always secure. It was not clear if people were involved in planning for the future where they wished to be due to a lack of records. People knew how to give feedback.
It was difficult to determine the transparency and culture of the service. The manager was were visible and approachable throughout our inspection, but we found appropriate care was not always being delivered and the management had not identified many of the issues we have found. We had also been provided misleading information on numerous occasions, which did not support that of an open culture, though staff told us they knew how to whistleblow. Governance and oversight of the service needed significant improvement. Improvement was needed in relation to partnership and accessing community support. The audits and oversight did not support a culture of continuous improvement. Staff told us they were treated fairly and the service employed a diverse range of staff.
This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we user our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.
People's experience of this service
People and relatives provided some mixed feedback about the quality of their care. People said they felt safe, but they told us they were not always involved in creating their care plan. People said they received support from staff. Whilst some people felt they were able to make choices, feedback from people and their relatives around activities was mixed. People we spoke with was happy with the food. While some of the people we spoke with expressed they were happy with their care, our assessment found some elements care did not meet the expected standards.