CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Sonrisa Care
The Gables
13 St Marys Road, Netley Abbey, Southampton, SO31 5AT
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found people at risk from unsafe care, weak medicines systems and poor oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 6 and 9 November 2023, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The inspectors found serious problems with safety. Risks such as falls, skin damage, nutrition and diabetes had not always been assessed. Safeguarding concerns were not always investigated or referred, and medicines were not always given or recorded safely.
The home was mostly clean and there were enough staff. People and relatives spoke positively about the care staff, the food and the manager. However, the systems meant to identify problems, learn from incidents and check care were not reliable.
The overall rating fell from Good to Inadequate. The home is in special measures, so CQC will keep it under review and normally re-inspect within six months. If it does not improve enough, CQC may take action to prevent the provider from operating the home.
Kind and familiar staff
People and relatives were positive about the care staff. People said staff knew them well and responded when they used the call bell.
“People told us they were happy and had their care needs met by care staff who knew them well.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment checks had been completed safely.
“Staff had been recruited safely into the service and there were enough staff to meet the needs of the people living at The Gables.” from the report
Food and choice
People had a choice of food and their dietary needs were catered for. The cook understood people's nutritional needs.
“People spoke positively about the food and drink they received at The Gables.” from the report
Clean communal areas
The communal lounges and bathrooms were mostly clean on the inspection days, although infection-control systems still had important gaps.
“The home was found to be mostly clean in communal lounges and bathrooms on the days of our inspection” from the report
People were at risk of harm
seriousIncidents including falls, injuries and a high-risk medicines error were not always investigated or referred to safeguarding authorities. The home did not have a reliable process for learning from incidents.
“People had been harmed or placed at risk of harm without external scrutiny of the home.” from the report
Unsafe risk management
seriousRisk assessments were missing for areas including falls, skin integrity, nutrition, oral hygiene and diabetes. Inspectors also found an exposed sharp metal pipe and an uncovered radiator in areas people used.
“People had been placed at risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousInstructions and records for as-required medicines, sedatives, creams and eye gels were incomplete. This meant people could receive medicines late, unnecessarily or after they should have been discarded.
“People had been placed at risk of harm from medicines that were not managed properly and safely.” from the report
Consent and capacity records
seriousRecords did not show that consent had been sought for care. Mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were missing for some restrictions, including bed rails and a lap belt.
“The Gables did not ensure it obtained people's consent to care and treatment.” from the report
Staff training was out of date
needs fixingStaff had not received all the training needed for people's care needs, including diabetes, catheter care, pressure care and positive behaviour support. Staff did not always receive supervision.
“Staff had not been provided with the training necessary to meet the needs of the people living at the home” from the report
Poor management oversight
seriousAudits and governance systems did not identify or correct widespread problems. Staff were not always clear who was responsible for key tasks when the manager was away.
“There was a lack of governance and oversight of The Gables, this had led to shortfalls and people had been harmed and were at risk of harm.” from the report
- 01What immediate changes have been made to assess and manage risks involving falls, skin damage, diabetes and unexplained injuries?
- 02How are safeguarding incidents, falls and medicines errors now reported, investigated, referred and reviewed for lessons?
- 03Can you show how medicines such as sedatives, blood-thinning medicines, creams and eye gels are now checked and recorded?
- 04How have you completed decision-specific mental capacity assessments, consent records and best-interest decisions for people subject to restrictions?
- 05What up-to-date training and supervision have staff completed for the needs of the people living here?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, prompted by concerns about safe care and governance; the report also gives an Effective rating and discusses consent and staff training, while it gives no separate ratings for Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of The Gables
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- December 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 2013.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.
Or stay at home with a private carer
Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.