CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Gryphon Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were given safely, the home was clean and there were enough staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans were kept up to date. Staff were trained and worked with healthcare professionals, but some mental capacity records needed improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind interactions. Staff respected people's dignity, privacy and independence and adapted communication to involve people in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People had activities, support with hobbies and links with the local community, although one relative wanted more activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had positive leadership, good teamwork and systems to monitor medicines, care plans, infection control, staffing and safety.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but mental capacity records were not always complete.
Inspectors visited on 10 June 2019. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a social care professional, and reviewed care plans, medicines records and checks on how the home was run.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines support, good healthcare links, kind relationships and care tailored to people's needs.
The main shortfall was in recording some mental capacity and best interests decisions. The manager agreed to review these records. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in October 2016.
Enough skilled staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were described as competent, knowledgeable and well supported.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored securely and given as prescribed. Staff were trained and had their skills checked.
“Medicines were stored safely, secured and at an appropriate temperature.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported privacy, dignity, communication and independence.
“We observed kind and caring interactions throughout our inspection visit.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about people's needs and preferences. Staff knew the people they supported well.
“There were individualised plans in place to guide staff on supporting people, and staff knew people's needs and preferences very well.” from the report
Good oversight
The home had regular checks on important areas and acted when audits found shortfalls.
“There were effective systems in place which monitored the running of the service.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments and records explaining best interests decisions were missing or incomplete. The manager agreed to review the documentation.
“There were not always appropriate mental capacity assessments in place for specific decisions which were made for people who lacked capacity” from the report
More activities
minorOne relative wanted more activities in the home. Inspectors saw activities taking place, and the manager was planning further improvements.
“One relative said they would like to see more of this in the home, and the registered manager was planning on further improvements.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the recording of mental capacity assessments since this inspection?
- 02How do you record the reasons for best interests decisions, including decisions before a DoLS application?
- 03What activities are currently available, and what further improvements were made after the relative's feedback?
- 04How do you check that medicines are given safely and that staff remain competent?
- 05How are relatives involved in care planning and informed about changes?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, using observations, conversations and a review of one care plan in detail, parts of three others, medicines records and service checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 June 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, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some areas to improve.
The announced inspection took place on 8 September 2016. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff, the manager and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good training, safe medicines practice and detailed care plans.
Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs. Relatives were involved and activities were provided. Inspectors also found some improvements were needed, including learning from a person's falls, updated pressure care training for some nurses, and better involvement of people who had communication difficulties.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were in place and staff had worked at the home for a long time.
“People benefited from being supported by staff who had worked at the service a long time, they were safely recruited and well trained.” from the report
Medicines
Registered nurses administered medicines. Records and audits showed medicines were given as prescribed and stored securely.
“Medicines were administered safely and adherence to best practice was consistently applied.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff communicating calmly and gently. People were supported in a way that respected their dignity, privacy and independence.
“Staff had a good knowledge of the people they supported and delivered care in a respectful and compassionate manner.” from the report
Health support
The home contacted health professionals when people's needs changed. Inspectors found that staff responded proactively to health concerns.
“People were supported to maintain good health and wellbeing. The service responded proactively to changes in people's health and social care needs.” from the report
Learning from falls
needs fixingOne record showed a person had a series of falls over a long period. Although the falls were recorded, the home had not considered options to prevent them happening again.
“Although the service had recorded these, they had not considered the options to try and prevent this from happening again.” from the report
Pressure care training
needs fixingSome nurses had not received updated pressure care training. The manager said arrangements were being made.
“However, some nurses had not had updated training in 'pressure care'.” from the report
Involving people in decisions
needs fixingPeople had different verbal and non-verbal communication needs. Inspectors found it was difficult to involve everyone fully in care planning and running the home.
“This meant that staff found it challenging to fully involve people in planning their care.” from the report
Activities and community access
minorThe home provided activities, but it recognised that this needed further development. Some staff felt trips out had not happened often enough recently.
“However, the service understood they needed to develop this further.” from the report
Communication with the provider
needs fixingSome staff and a relative described negative experiences with the provider, including delays or a lack of response to important issues.
“Some staff felt the provider did not want to discuss issues which were important to them.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to learn from falls and reduce the risk of further falls?
- 02Have all nurses now completed updated pressure care training?
- 03How will you involve people who cannot communicate verbally in care planning and decisions?
- 04How often do people now go out into the community using the minibus?
- 05How are staff and relatives' concerns passed to, and answered by, the provider?
This was an announced inspection covering all five questions; inspectors spoke with three people, reviewed three care records and three medicines records, and also checked staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 October 2016 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 Gryphon Place
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 December 2010.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.