Griffin House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to three people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection, there were two people living at Griffin House. The service is within easy reach of local amenities. Parking is available to the front of the property and there is a well-kept garden to the rear. There are bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs and a lounge, kitchen and dining room and further bathroom on the ground floor.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

The service met all relevant fundamental standards.

A registered manager was 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.

The service maintained effective systems to safeguard people from abuse. Staff were aware of what to look out for and how to report any concerns. Information about safeguarding was available for staff to access.

Risk was fully assessed and reviewed. Positive risk taking was encouraged to improve people’s skills and promote their independence.

Medicines were safely stored and administered in accordance with best-practice. Staff were trained in administration.

Care and support were delivered in line with current legislation and best-practice. For example, the service made use of positive behaviour support models to ensure that behaviours were clearly understood and to reduce the use of behaviours that challenged.

The service ensured that staff were trained to a high standard in appropriate subjects. This training was subject to regular review to ensure that staff were equipped to provide effective care and support.

People were supported by staff to maintain their health and wellbeing through access to a wide range of community healthcare services and specialists as required.

It was clear that the décor of Griffin House had been designed with the needs and preferences of the people living there in mind. Rooms were decorated in a manner which was age appropriate and reflected the personalities of the people living there.

The service operated in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were supported to maintain important family relationships and regular contact. The family members that we spoke with were extremely positive about the impact that this had on their relationships.

People were actively involved in decisions about their care. Staff took time to explain important information and offer choices. This was achieved by talking face to face and using Makaton to support understanding. Makaton is a simplified sign language used by some people with a learning disability.

People’s care records were extremely detailed and personalised to meet their individual preferences and needs. There was clear evidence that care plans were subject to regular review.

We saw evidence that each person had an individual model of support which included activities that reflected their preferences. People’s regular activities were displayed on a weekly timetable which used images to aid understanding.

People spoke positively about the management of the service and the approachability of staff.

People using the service and staff were actively involved in discussions about the service and were asked to share their views. This was achieved through regular meetings, discussions and surveys.

We saw evidence that the service worked effectively with other health and social care agencies to achieve better outcomes for people and improve quality and safety. This included staying up to date with developments in learning disability care through membership of the British Institute for Lea

This inspection took place on 21 August 2015 and was unannounced. Griffin House is located in a quiet residential area of Southport. The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to three people. At the time of our inspection, there were two young people living at Griffin House with learning disabilities and mental health needs. The home offers long term care and support in a domestic property.

A registered manager was 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 felt safe and staff knew what actions to take if they thought that anyone had been harmed in any way. Relatives told us they were happy with the care their family member was receiving at the home.

People received their medicines as prescribed and safe practices had been followed in the administration and recording of medicines.

Relatives and other professionals we spoke with confirmed that there were enough staff available to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Staff were kind and compassionate when working with people. They knew people well and were aware of their history, preferences and dislikes. People’s privacy and dignity were upheld. Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified. People had been referred to healthcare professionals when needed.

People told us there were enough suitably trained staff to meet their individual care needs. Staff were only appointed after a thorough recruitment process. Staff were available to support people to go on trips or visits within the local and wider community.

Staff understood the need to respect people’s choices and decisions if they had the capacity to do so. Assessments had been carried out and reviewed regarding people’s individual capacity to make care decisions. Were people did not have capacity, this was documented appropriately and decisions were made in their best interest with the involvement of family members where appropriate and relevant health care professionals. This showed the provider understood and was adhering to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.This is legislation to protect and empower people who may not be able to make their own decisions.

The provider was meeting their requirements set out in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS is part of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and aims to ensure people in care homes and hospitals are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom unless it is in their best interests. At the time of this inspection, no applications had been authorised under DoLS for people’s freedoms and liberties to be restricted.

People’s bedrooms were individually decorated to their own tastes. People were encouraged to express their views and these were communicated to staff in a variety of ways – verbally, through physical gestures, body language, Makaton and British Sign Language.

People were supported to purchase and prepare the food and drink that they chose. People who lived at the home, their relatives and other professionals had been involved in the assessment and planning of their care. Care records were detailed and gave staff the information they required so that they were aware of how to meet people’s needs.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people felt confident to raise any concerns either with the staff, the deputy manager or the registered manager.

At the time of our visit to this location there were two young adults living at Griffin House. One of the young people was present during the inspection. They did not use words but were able to tell and show us how they made decisions about their care using their preferred methods of communication. Staff were able to support us in understanding the communication methods of the young person we spoke to. It was evident from our observations that the person had a positive and trusting relationship with the staff supporting them. We contacted the parents of both young people by telephone, so that we could obtain a balanced view about the level of care and support received by their children.

At the time of our visit to this location there were two young adults living at Griffin House. Due to their complex needs they were unable to verbalise with us and therefore could not tell us what it was like living there. However, they were able to use alternative methods of communication, such as Maketon, picture information and basic sign language. Both these people looked comfortable in their environment and were able to make gestures suggesting that they were happy living at the home. It was evident from our observations that both people were very fond of the care team and they were eager to show us photographs of each member of staff.

We contacted the parents of both young people by telephone, so that we could obtain their views about the level of care and support received by their daughters. They were extremely complimentary about the service provided and the staff team at Griffin House.

One parent told us, "Our daughter is able to make decisions about what she wants to do. The staff have her out most days" and another commented, "You here some terrible things going on in care homes, but I can assure you that Griffin House is a million miles away from that. We think that our daughter is in the best place in the world. She is kept safe and is as happy as she can be and that is all down to the love and care given by the staff at Griffin House".

We have used additional comments within this report under each outcome area assessed.

We were able to spend time talking with staff and observed and spoke with one person who lived at the home. We also talked by telephone with relatives of people who lived at the home. In our observations we found the home was well managed on a day to day basis. The house was clean, tidy and well-presented and maintained. We found staff understood the health conditions of people they cared for and provided support that upheld people's right to make choices and decisions in their daily lives. Care was person centred and planned in a way to meet people's individual needs. Relatives were kept updated of progress and of any changes to care. We found complaints to be minimal, and compliments were many.

People were supported to follow a well-balanced diet and to pursue activities they enjoyed in the community. Staff were aware of risk assessments in place, which were followed, for example, when travelling. We spoke to a relative of person who lived at the home. They told us " [Name of person] has lived there now for a long time and we trust staff implicitly with her care." One staff member we spoke with had provided support since the people had arrived at the home and clearly knew them very well. They told us "You tend to think of them as your own relatives. I genuinely love them both and don't know that I could ever leave here."

We met one person when they arrived home after a shopping trip. They were clearly pleased to be home, were comfortable in their environment and enjoyed the company of support staff.