You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We have not inspected this service yet

Inspection summaries and ratings from previous provider


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 June 2017

We inspected The Gables Retirement Home Limited on 24 April 2017. This was an unannounced inspection. The service was registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 35 older people, with a range of medical and age related conditions, including arthritis, frailty, mobility issues, diabetes and dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 18 people using the service.

At our last inspection on 21 October 2015 no concerns were identified and the service was found to be compliant in all outcome areas.

A registered manager, who was also the provider, was in post and present on the day of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff were not always deployed appropriately to safely meet people’s care and support needs. People on the first floor had limited access to bathing and shower facilities.

People’s needs were assessed and their care plans provided staff with clear guidance about how they wanted their individual needs met. Care plans were person centred and contained appropriate risk assessments. They were regularly reviewed and amended as necessary to ensure they reflected people’s changing support needs. People were able to access health, social and medical care, as required.

There were policies and procedures in place to keep people safe and there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they had completed training in safe working practices. We saw people were supported with patience, consideration and kindness and their privacy and dignity was respected.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed and appropriate pre-employment checks had been made including evidence of identity and satisfactory written references. Appropriate checks were also undertaken to ensure new staff were safe to work within the care sector. Staff received one-to-one supervision meetings with their line manager. Formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals, were in place.

Medicines were managed safely in accordance with current regulations and guidance by staff who had received appropriate training to help ensure safe practice. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately.

People were being supported to make decisions in their best interests. The registered manager and staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and records were accurately maintained to ensure people were protected from risks associated with eating and drinking. Where risks to people had been identified, these had been appropriately monitored and referrals made to relevant professionals, where necessary.

There was a formal complaints process in place. People were encouraged and supported to express their views about their care and staff were responsive to their comments. Satisfaction questionnaires were used to obtain the views of people who lived in the home, their relatives and other stakeholders.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 24 June 2017

The service was not always safe.

Staff were not always deployed appropriately to safely meet people�s care and support needs. Medicines were stored and administered safely and accurate records were maintained. Comprehensive systems were in place to regularly monitor the quality of the service. People were protected by robust recruitment practices, which helped ensure their safety. Concerns and risks were identified and acted upon.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 June 2017

The service was not always effective.

People received effective care from staff who had the knowledge and skills to carry out their roles and responsibilities. However staff were not always deployed appropriately to meet people�s care and support needs. There was limited access to communal bath and shower rooms. Dark corridors, poor signage and limited social stimulation reflected a lack of dementia awareness. Staff had training in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and had an understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Capacity assessments were completed for people, as needed, to ensure their rights were protected. People were able to access external health and social care services, as required.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 June 2017

The service was caring.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the kind, understanding and compassionate attitude of the registered manager and care staff. Staff spent time with people, communicated patiently and effectively and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in making decisions about their care. They were regularly asked about their choices and individual preferences and these were reflected in the personalised care and support they received.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 June 2017

The service was responsive.

Staff had a good understanding of people�s identified care and support needs. Individual care and support needs were regularly assessed and monitored, to ensure that any changes were accurately reflected in the care and treatment people received. A complaints procedure was in place and people told us that they felt able to raise any issues or concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 June 2017

The service was well led.

Staff said they felt valued and supported by the established and very experienced manager. They were aware of their responsibilities and felt confident in their individual roles. There was a positive, open and inclusive culture throughout the service and staff shared and demonstrated values that included honesty, compassion, safety and respect. People were encouraged to share their views about the service and improvements were made. There was an effective quality monitoring system to help ensure the care provided reflected people�s needs.