The Gables

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The service continues to be in breach of legal regulations in relation to good governance. Aspects of record keeping, understanding of legal requirements and auditing required further work.

This service scored 71 (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 Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Governance systems were in place but were not all robust in order to provide assurance any new and emerging risks would be identified.

Staff completed regular medicines audits, but they had not identified or addressed the medicine records issues we found in safe, in relation to paracetamol or levothyroxine. Therefore, there was a risk people might not receive these medicines correctly. The medicines audits required further review to identify and address any issues with the reconciliation of medicines or anomalies in records.

The provider’s service improvement plan showed staff had received training about monitoring the temperature of the fridge used for the safe storage of medicines. However, we found raised temperatures were not identified either by staff or through the medicine audits. Action was not taken to investigate until we raised the issue. Processes to identify and address any issues with the fridge temperature were not effective.

The provider had completed a staff recruitment audit and identified actions were being addressed. However, a lack of sufficient understanding of the details of legal requirements meant the audit was not effective. Although the recruitment policy had been reviewed in 2025 it did not fully detail the legal requirements to provide clear guidance. The provider acted immediately to address the omissions we found. The recruitment policy, application form and recruitment audit required review to reduce the likelihood of re-occurrence.

Three safety records were not initially available to us. The registered manager knew the outcomes from the asbestos survey and the last equipment safety check, but the provider’s systems had not identified the safety certificates had not been received. The water temperature checks could not be located at the site visit. Although all 3 were obtained, the provider’s processes to ensure safety check records were obtained, reviewed and stored were not fully robust.

However, there was an audit schedule, which set out the auditing requirements for all aspects of the service. The provider had a service improvement plan which they updated monthly with any new actions identified from their audits. This enabled them to have oversight of outstanding actions, and we saw many actions had been identified and completed. They were reviewing trends monthly to take any required actions.

There was regular support and oversight from the provider and we saw evidence of a range of improvements to the service since the last inspection, such as the new conservatory, and further improvements to the menus and activities.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.