CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Griffin House Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe premises, suitable recruitment checks and safe infection control. Medicines were managed safely overall, although some guidance for medicines used when needed had to be put right during the visit.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The home met people's care, nutrition and health needs in many areas. However, mental capacity assessments and decisions about consent did not follow the Mental Capacity Act, and Regulation 11 remained breached.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and compassionate. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity, supported to remain independent and cared for in a relaxed, homely atmosphere.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people's needs were reviewed. Activities and opportunities to avoid social isolation had improved, and complaints were investigated and answered.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers were visible, approachable and supportive, and governance had improved in most areas. The continuing failure to apply the Mental Capacity Act correctly meant the rating remained Requires Improvement.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Griffin House Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, safe care but ongoing failures to protect people's legal right to consent.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 28 March 2023. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and management records. They also reviewed infection prevention measures.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines and premises, kind and person-centred care, and improved activities. People's needs were assessed and referrals to health professionals were made when needed.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. The main problem was that mental capacity assessments and decisions about consent did not follow the Mental Capacity Act. This had been a problem at the previous three inspections, so the home remained in breach of Regulation 11.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement, as it was at the previous inspection. The provider must send an action plan, and the CQC will monitor progress and inspect again under its re-inspection programme.
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people well and treated them with warmth, patience and respect. Inspectors saw staff spending time talking with people and joining in activities.
“Staff were kind, caring and patient with people. It was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's physical and emotional needs. Medicines, recruitment checks and infection control were managed safely overall.
“On the day we visited, there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Improved activities
The choice and access to activities had improved since the last inspection. Activities were part of the daily routine and included games, exercises and planned events.
“At this inspection, the access and choice of activities on offer had improved and activities were an integral part of the day.” from the report
Open management
The managers were visible and approachable. Families had opportunities to give feedback through meetings and surveys, and staff said they felt supported.
“The manager and deputy manager were open and transparent, and it was easy to access information about the service and people's care.” from the report
Consent and mental capacity
seriousThe home still did not properly assess whether people could make specific decisions about their care. Some records about resuscitation and restrictions did not show consent or a best-interest decision.
“People's legal right to consent to their care was still not properly protected in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.” from the report
Some care information needed updating
needs fixingMost risks and needs were assessed, but information about one person's medical needs needed improvement. The manager said it would be reviewed without delay.
“Information about one person's medical needs required improvement and we spoke with the manager about this who told us they would review this without delay.” from the report
- 01How will you assess a person's capacity for each separate care decision, rather than assessing several decisions at once?
- 02How will you record consent or a best-interest decision for do-not-resuscitate records and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 03What actions are in your Regulation 11 improvement plan, and when will each action be completed?
- 04How will you make sure medical needs and risk information in care records stays accurate and up to date?
- 05How will you maintain the improvements in activities, medicines, infection control and governance?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at all five key questions and infection prevention measures; the report says the previous inspection was comprehensive. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 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.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and recent progress, but medicines, consent, activities and management still needed urgent improvement.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 27 September 2021. Inspectors reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records. They spoke with relatives, staff and the management team.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, when it was rated Inadequate and placed in Special Measures. Care planning, risk management, infection control, staffing and record keeping had improved. Staff were described as kind, patient and respectful.
Important problems remained. Medicines were not always managed safely. Mental Capacity Act requirements were not always followed, and people did not always have enough meaningful activities. The home remained in breach of Regulations 11, 12 and 17.
The overall rating changed from Inadequate to Requires Improvement, and the home was removed from Special Measures. CQC asked for an action plan and said it would monitor progress and inspect again.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff supporting people patiently and with kindness. Relatives also said staff were attentive and understood the people they cared for.
“During our visit, staff were kind and caring. They were patient when supporting people and supported them at their own pace.” from the report
Improved care planning
New care plans and risk guidance were clear, detailed and centred on each person. Records showed staff followed the guidance and responded to people's health needs.
“New care plans and risk management guidance for staff to follow had been put in place. These were clear, easy to follow and sufficient.” from the report
Better infection control
The home had improved its infection prevention arrangements. Staff used masks and protective equipment properly, and COVID-19 testing was in place.
“Infection prevention control procedures in accordance with government guidance were followed.” from the report
New management approach
The new manager had introduced audits that inspectors found effective in identifying and driving improvements. Information was also organised and easier to access.
“During our inspection, we found these audits to be effective in identifying and driving up standards.” from the report
Food and nutrition support
People's nutrition and hydration needs were assessed and monitored. Staff offered choices and provided help at mealtimes when needed.
“At lunch, we saw that staff offered people a choice of food and drink and checked to see if they had enjoyed their meal or, if they needed any help.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousThe system for identifying medicines before they were given was inaccurate. Unwanted medicines were not stored safely and could have been given in error.
“Unwanted medicines were not stored safely which meant they could be given in error.” from the report
Consent records did not always follow the law
seriousSome decisions about people's care did not have evidence that the person had capacity to consent or that the decision was in their best interests.
“Some people had 'do not resuscitate' records or deprivation of liberty safeguards in place with no evidence that the person had the capacity to consent to this, or evidence that it was in their best interests.” from the report
Too few meaningful activities
needs fixingRelatives said people often spent most of their time watching television. The manager had plans to improve activities, but inspectors found more work was needed.
“During our visit, we did not see any activities in progress.” from the report
Quality systems still needed work
seriousAlthough the new manager's audits were effective, further improvements were still needed to manage risks linked to medicines, consent and activities.
“Further improvements to the service were still required to mitigate risks to quality and safety.” from the report
One recruitment record remained incomplete
minorNew staff had the required checks, but one older recruitment file still lacked adequate information about the person's appointment or employment contract.
“At this inspection, the provider had still not acted on this. This was poor practice.” from the report
- 01How are unwanted medicines now stored and disposed of, and how do staff check each medicine before giving it?
- 02How are mental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions recorded for people who cannot make particular decisions?
- 03What meaningful activities are available now, and how are they matched to each person's interests?
- 04What improvements have been made in response to the action plan for Regulations 11, 12 and 17?
- 05How are the manager's audits reviewed to make sure risks are identified and dealt with promptly?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, following up on the previous Inadequate rating and Special Measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 2021 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 Griffin House Care Home
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- May 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2021Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2020Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 September 2018.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Knowsley
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 91 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.