Gable Healthcare Services Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment.

This service scored 54 (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 did not check with people for accuracy of information on their health and care needs during assessment prior to admission to the service. Assessment tools for identifying risk were either inconsistent or incorrect. For example, the person was able to tell us their preferred care needs but we found these incorrectly recorded in their care records. We were not reassured that the provider involved the person and recorded accurate information on assessment to ensure risks were mitigated and the persons needs and preferences would be met.

The provider did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not always follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. We were not reassured that people were fully involved in the planning of their care. It was unclear how often care reviews involving people were taking place as there was no evidence of this. Although dates on records suggest relatively regular reviews of care by staff, the information in the records was mostly either incorrect or inconsistent so we were not reassured people had been involved in the review process or that the provider was delivering evidence-based care and treatment. The person was able to communicate their needs with us, but the information they provided did not reflect what was recorded in their care records. Assessment tools to establish risk levels were not always used and the provider did not have accurate information about the persons needs to trigger the use of tools to help identify and mitigate risk.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. The provider had not ensured effective communication and information sharing with Commissioners, safeguarding teams and CQC. The provider had repeatedly failed to attend meetings with commissioners and had not always shared information on request with stakeholders who were investigating concerns or ensuring contractual agreements were being met. The provider repeatedly failed to provide CQC with requested information. Staff told us they had the information they needed to provide safe care and treatment and they were able to have input into care planning. A staff member was able to demonstrate they knew a person well. However, we found the provider did not always amend records to contain consistent information across documents. Risks to people were somewhat mitigated by having a regular team of staff that knew them well. Staff told us they mostly worked with the same people and the person we spoke with confirmed this.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.