CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Griffin Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments, staffing, recruitment, infection control and medicines systems were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training, induction and support needed for their roles. People’s health, nutrition, communication and legal rights were supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were patient, kind and caring. Inspectors saw warm and friendly interactions, and people were involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people’s needs, wishes and goals. Activities were based on individual interests, and communication methods were understood and respected.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had daily, weekly and monthly checks and audits. Staff and relatives spoke positively about the changes under the current management.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited over three days, with the first day unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and management records.
The home was clean and medicines were managed safely. There were enough staff during the inspection, and staff had suitable training and support. People were treated kindly and supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities they enjoyed.
Care plans were detailed and communication needs were well recorded. The home used positive behaviour support and any physical intervention was intended only as a last resort. Inspectors found good quality checks and said the provider was no longer breaching regulations found at the previous inspection.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good. This means inspectors found the care consistently met the required standard at the time of this inspection, although it was not rated Outstanding.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, safe recruitment and enough staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines records were complete and medicines were given as prescribed.
“The home was visibly clean and there were no unpleasant odours.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and treated them with warmth, patience and kindness. People’s dignity, privacy and independence were respected.
“We observed staff interactions with people were caring, warm and friendly.” from the report
Improved management
Inspectors found stronger systems for checking quality and acting on problems. The provider was no longer in breach of the three regulations identified at the previous inspection.
“We found there were now good systems of daily, weekly and monthly quality assurance checks and audits.” from the report
The building is larger than current guidance
minorThe home is larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the way it was organised and the support provided reduced the negative impact.
“The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties.” from the report
Some redecoration was still needed
minorSome parts of the home needed redecorating at the time of the inspection. The provider was waiting for quotes before starting the work.
“Some areas of the home needed redecoration.” from the report
Staffing and communication points to check
minorThere were staff vacancies and some agency staff were being used, although inspectors found enough staff and said the agency workers were regular and known to people. One relative said they would sometimes like more information about daily activities.
“The service had staff vacancies and there had been on going recruitment.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with the redecoration that was awaiting quotes at the inspection?
- 02How many staff vacancies are there now, and how often are agency staff used?
- 03How will you keep families informed about the person’s day-to-day activities?
- 04How are positive behaviour support plans reviewed after an incident?
- 05How will you maintain the daily, weekly and monthly quality checks found at this inspection?
This planned inspection looked at all five CQC questions, including the care and the premises, and followed a previous Requires Improvement rating with three breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 September 2019 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, August 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring and responsive work, but concerns about staffing, training, cleanliness and management checks.
Inspectors visited over three days in April 2018. The first visit was unannounced. They looked around the home, reviewed care, medicine and staff records, observed support and meals, and spoke with people, relatives, professionals, managers and staff.
The home supported 12 adults with learning disabilities, sensory impairments and physical and mental health needs. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, people received health care and had personalised activities. Communication methods included picture-based information and British Sign Language.
However, staffing levels were not always as planned, agency staff were used regularly and some new staff supported people before completing training or induction. Inspectors also found poor infection control, including a need for a deep clean, and some care that did not protect people's dignity. Management checks had not identified these problems.
The overall rating means the home was not consistently meeting the standards inspectors assessed. Three regulations were breached. The previous concern about best-interest decisions under the Mental Capacity Act had been addressed, but the overall rating remained Requires Improvement.
Safe medicines
Inspectors checked medicines for six people and found they were stored, administered and managed safely.
“Medicines were administered and managed safely in all checks we conducted.” from the report
Community life
People accessed the community regularly and had personalised weekly activities, including swimming, bowling and holidays.
“People were supported to fully access the community and personal activities.” from the report
Accessible communication
The home used communication passports, picture cards, pictorial care plans and basic sign language to help people understand information and express their needs.
“Information was available and communicated in a variety of formats specific to the individual needs of people.” from the report
Health support
People were supported to see health professionals, including GPs, dentists, podiatrists and psychiatric services.
“People were supported to have their health care needs met by health care practitioners and received prompt medical attention.” from the report
Staff support
Staff described the management as approachable and fair, and inspectors saw regular team meetings and staff supervision.
“Management are good, approachable and fair.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousStaffing levels were not always what the home said was needed, especially at night. The home also used a significant amount of agency staff, which staff and relatives said affected consistency.
“During a review of previous staff rotas, we found these staffing levels were not always in place.” from the report
Training and induction
seriousSome new staff supported people unsupervised before completing mandatory training or induction. The home could not provide an up-to-date training matrix.
“New staff had not completed training or induction prior to providing care and support to people living at the home.” from the report
Infection control
seriousThe home needed a deep clean. Inspectors saw staff not using protective equipment when needed, and other practices that could increase the risk of cross-contamination.
“This placed people and staff at risk of cross contamination due to potential unsafe infection control practice.” from the report
Dignity and interaction
needs fixingInspectors saw some caring relationships, but also limited meaningful interaction and language that was not always respectful or suitable for adults.
“We observed some kind and caring interactions where it was clear staff people knew people well.” from the report
Management checks
seriousAudits and checks existed but had failed to identify the problems found with training and infection control. Some earlier fire safety actions had also not been followed up.
“Management oversight had not identified or actioned the concerns we found during this inspection.” from the report
Personal goals
minorPeople's care records were detailed overall, but their aspirational outcomes did not always describe meaningful achievements or increased independence.
“We recommend Griffin Lodge ensure people's aspirational outcome plans are centred on more meaningful achievements and outcomes.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now scheduled on each night, and what happens if someone is absent?
- 02How many agency staff are currently used, and how do you make sure they know my relative's needs and preferences?
- 03Has every staff member completed mandatory training, induction, safeguarding training and Mental Capacity Act training before working unsupervised?
- 04What has been done since the inspection to complete the deep clean and improve infection control, including protective equipment and broken bins?
- 05How are fire safety actions, training and infection control now checked by management, and can I see the latest findings?
This was a planned inspection of the whole service over three days, including the premises, care, medicines, records, staffing, interactions and management systems; the first day was unannounced. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 August 2018 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 Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 October 2013.
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 Stockport
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.