The Gables

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider had taken action to ensure the premises were safe and acted during the inspection to address the remaining issues in relation to staff recruitment.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider now detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They now made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider ensured safety checks had been completed in relation to fire, gas, electrical, asbestos, water and equipment safety.

The provider had completed the required actions from their last fire risk assessment. All exits were clear and secure. Measures were in place to ensure people's safety if required when they were in the garden. Day and night had staff completed fire drills. Warning lights that needed to be fitted to empty spaces within the home in case of fire had been fitted.

The provider had ensured a legionella risk assessment and water temperature checks were completed. Thermostatic valves used to ensure the water coming out of hot water taps was a safe temperature had been safety tested as required.

The registered manager told us about the ongoing maintenance programme for the service, which included the recent replacement of the conservatory and the ordering of new conservatory furniture to make the space more sociable for people. The provider had also ensured the 2 baths used were in full working order and was in the process of changing some flooring.

Recruitment practices were not sufficiently robust and safe to make sure all staff, were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role.

The provider acted promptly to address the concerns identified in relation to some pre-employment checks. Staff worked well together to deliver safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The provider completed a range of pre-employment recruitment checks. However, a staff recruitment file did not include the date the individual completed their full-time education, and another contained an unexplained employment gap. Whilst there was no impact upon people, we discussed this with the registered manager, who took swift action to address it.

All staff received an induction appropriate to their role, as well as ongoing training and supervision. Staff confirmed they received consistent supervision from management and told us they felt well supported in their role.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed for the number of people accommodated to ensure safe care and support people’s individual needs. People told us there were enough staff on duty and they felt safe with the care provided. The provider was actively recruiting additional staff to ensure staffing levels were sufficient in readiness for any new admissions.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Improvements had been made following our previous inspection. However, some medicine records needed further improvement. Staff did not always have up to date medicine protocols when administering people’s PRN medicines (medicines taken when required). The provider was aware of this shortfall. At the time of the inspection, they had started reviewing people’s PRN protocols. Where PRN protocols had been reviewed and updated these met good practice guidelines.

We found two medicine recording errors. People had received the correct dose of paracetamol or levothyroxine, but it was recorded inaccurately in the electronic medicine administration record. The registered manager took immediate action and confirmed people had received their medicines as prescribed. They put additional medicine checks in place to prevent recurrence.

However, we observed people receiving their medicine in accordance with their preferences from appropriately trained staff. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to review people’s medicines to ensure their treatment remained effective and they only received the medicines they required.

Medicines that required additional checks had been managed and recorded appropriately. People’s medicines were ordered, stored and disposed of safely in line with legislation and guidance. The medicines policy had been reviewed and updated since the last inspection.