Archived: Griffiths House

Updated 2 February 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 19 January 2021 and was announced.

Updated 2 February 2021

Griffiths House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to eight people. There were eight people living in the home at the time of the inspection. The service supports older people living with dementia.

This was the services first inspection since registering with us in July 2016.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were receiving care that was responsive and effective. Care plans were in place that described how the person would like to be supported. The care plans provided staff with information to support the person effectively. People were evidently involved in the planning of their care. Other health and social professionals were involved in the care of the people living at Griffiths House.

The atmosphere in the home was inclusive, which promoted a homely and family feel to the service. People were the focus of the care.

People’s rights were upheld and they were involved in decisions about their care and support. Where decisions were more complex, these had been discussed with relatives and other health care professionals to ensure it was in the person’s best interest. Staff were knowledgeable about legislation to protect people in relation to making decisions and the deprivation of liberty safeguards.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because there were clear procedures in place to recognise and respond to abuse and staff had been trained in how to follow the procedures. Systems were in place to ensure people were safe including risk management, checks on the environment and safe recruitment processes. Safe systems were in place to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff were caring and supportive and demonstrated a good understanding of their roles in supporting people. There was a real commitment to ensure staff had the appropriate training to support people effectively. Staff were supported in their roles. Systems were in place to ensure open communication including team meetings and daily handovers. This ensured important information was shared between staff enabling them to provide care that was safe, effective and consistent.

People were involved in activities in the home and the local community. These were organised taking into consideration the interests of the people.

People’s views were sought through care reviews and resident meetings and acted upon. There were systems to ensure that complaints were responded to.

The registered manager and the provider completed regular checks on the systems that were in operation in the home to ensure they were effective.

People were provided with a safe, effective, caring and responsive service that was well led. The organisation’s values and philosophy were clearly explained to staff. There was a positive culture where people felt included and their views were sought.