Archived: The Gables Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met through good organisation and delivery.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to how people were not supported in a person-centred way and in relation to the governance of the service.

This service scored 46 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Records were not always as person centred as they could have been, for example, some people’s care plans did not detail their life history, information relating to people’s continence requirements were not always detailed and appropriate referrals were not always being made. For example, when someone lost weight an appropriate referral was not made to the dietician. Most people told us they had not seen their care plans or been involved in reviews. One person told us, “They help me to have shower, I don’t clean my teeth and nobody helps me to clean them.” One relative said “I have only been in recently, I noticed a few things, like if a resident asleep, they wake them up for meals but not given them enough time to come around before they moved them.” Staff were not always confident around what person centred care meant.

During observations at The Gables Care Home, we did witness some person centred interactions between staff and people, though other elements of our findings did not support this as detailed throughout this report.

Throughout the inspection staff and management made reference to various organisations they could make referrals to for support when needed, though this was not always happening. We found some examples where referrals were made to ensure people received the right support and treatment, though this was not always consistent.

One relative told us “I don’t know if she can go outside. Since the new owner took over, they don’t go out.” One person said, “I haven’t really got any (interests), but I would like to go out more.”

The majority of care staff were male and feedback on this was mixed, one relative said, “She didn’t like being cared for my male carers and I am not sure now as she has dementia.”

People’s information was protected using passwords on electronic devices, but this was not always being followed as we witnessed unlocked handheld devices containing care records left around the communal spaces. Cupboards containing people’s personal information was not always securely locked. The managers office had a lockable door, though this was not always closed when the office was vacant.

People could access information and could express their views in numerous ways including at resident meetings, through surveys and by raising complaints. Staff spoke about how they communicate with people using prompts when needed. The manager was able to tell us about how they could make information accessible for people. They told us, "If residents need anything, like in respect healthcare needs, for example if they had hearing problems, we can do things like get a clock that talks and a large clocks, I don’t have anyone that requires big print, but we could do that also."

People could provide feedback and told us that if they had any concerns they would speak to the staff or the manager. Staff told us they generally felt able to escalate any concerns to management to investigate.

People and their relatives were able to raise concerns or feedback through various channels including at meetings and through a complaints process. We reviewed a complaints log for the last 12 months and this had no complaints recorded that relate to The Gables Care Home.

Some surveys had been completed by people and their responses were mostly positive. Policies were in place to support people sharing feedback, including a complaints policy.

We could not be assured that people could access care and support when needed as some necessary referrals had not been made. The service may initially be difficult for some people to access at the front due to steps, though when inside the service was accessible as people had access to a lift to all floors. One of the upper floors was dark and this could make it difficult for people to clearly see where they were going. The service had equipment in place to support accessibility in the home. The home could be accessed through the back which some people may find easier, but we had concerns regarding this.

Staff felt the home was accessible, one staff member said the “The home is accessible, has handrails for people to get around and a garden.” Though we found the garden was not secure during our inspection.

Professional feedback was not always positive, their comments included, “I think the door to the car park is not always locked so I am not sure how safe that is.” And “They never answer the phone when I ring them.”

People and their families provided mixed feedback in relation to experiences and outcomes, people told us they felt listened to, but families said that they had not always been listened to when raising concerns such as issues regarding a shared room. Staff told us they had no concerns about the care the service provided. One staff member told us they “Feel everyone is treated well and the same. Staff take care of people and are respectful and polite.”

Ad-hoc meetings for/with residents and their relatives were taking place, which kept people and their relatives up to date with any changes and allowed them to discuss any concerns.

People and their relatives who we spoke to did not specifically provide any information relating to this, but they suggested throughout our conversations that the management was approachable. However, as they had not always been involved in care planning, we could not be assured they had been involved in discussions about planning for the future. Details in relation to end of life wishes were not consistently in place in peoples care plans.

The manager told us how they support families when someone passes away, they told us, "We send a sympathy card, we welcome them in we are happy to give them a week or two to get the room empty." We saw evidence that people had a DNACPR in place where it was their wish.