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. We were told that staff did not always know how to best support people when they were showing signs of distress. This meant at times relatives thought their family members care needs were not always met. On the whole, people and their relatives felt staff knew them well. People told us they felt staff treated them fairly and their wishes were respected.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Although people and their relatives told us they were not actively involved in their care planning, the staff knew their needs well. One relative however, felt staff did not know how to effectively support their family member when they showed signs of distress. This resulted in the person’s needs not always being met. For example, by not always being supported to have a bath or shower.

Staff we spoke with knew what good person-centred care looked like and showed a commitment to providing this for the people using the service. The registered manager was aware that people’s care plans needed further development in this area, including involving people, their relatives and staff in the process. The registered manager told us of plans to drive this improvement immediately.

People were observed to be treated with a fair and friendly approach. Some people were engaged in different activities throughout the day, however, activities were not always tailored to people’s differing abilities.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

Although people told us they were not involved in the planning and reviewing of their care they told us they felt listened too. Resident meetings were conducted on a monthly basis and relative’s meetings were held twice a year. Although when we spoke with relatives not everyone was aware of these. People told us they felt able to raise concerns should they need to. We were told by 1 relative that feedback was shared via a questionnaire they received through the post, however, they never received feedback on their comments.

The provider shared the difficulties they had in receiving feedback from people and their relatives. They told us they sought feedback from people within resident meetings in different formats. For example, doing this verbally and by using electronic formats. They told us they aimed to get feedback from relative’s when they visited the service as they do not often have questionnaires returned if sent through the post.

The provider’s care planning and admission policy demonstrated how people and their relatives were to be involved in their care planning. Through the records we reviewed on-site, we were not this had been done. Care plans did not record people's preferences regarding personal care.

People told us their living environment was mostly accessible to them. We were informed of accessibility issues to the outdoor area. The provider was aware of this and had plans in place to make this more accessible. People and their relatives told us there was little community involvement, and people rarely got to leave the home to engage in community facilities. People told us they had opportunities to feedback to the provider and they felt comfortable doing this.

The registered manager told us of the various ways they included people in their care and encouraged feedback to actively improve the service they received.

Partners shared feedback on their relationship with the service. They shared feedback with us relating to 2 previous concerns they raised and advised they had not received feedback following these. This meant they were not assured that there had been resolution to the concerns.

People’s care plans did not reflect that people and their representatives were involved in their care planning, including the assessment and reviewing process. The provider was not working in line with their policies and procedures on this and improvement was needed in this area going forward.

People felt they were treated fairly, and their human rights were respected. We were told that people were treated with respect and kindness. One person told us, “Staff support me very well, they help me to express myself where possible”.

Staff and the management team understood the importance of people’s diversity. It was clear the provider wanted to provide a good quality service and we saw no evidence of any inequity in experience and outcomes.

The provider had an equality, diversity, and human rights policy in place to protect people and staff against discrimination.

At the time of our assessment, we were not able to speak with anyone who was receiving end of life care. We did speak with 1 relative whose family member was approaching end of life. No concerns were bought to our attention regarding the care this person was receiving.

Staff and the registered manager told us how they supported people who may be approaching the end of their life. The registered manager was very proud of the care they delivered in this area and said, “Our end of life care is second to none, it's one of the things we do best”.

We found people did not always have end of life plans in place. This meant there was a risk people’s choices and wishes for their end of life may not be upheld without this key information. This was addressed with the registered manager during our on site visit to the home.