You are here

Archived: Mount Avenue

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 April 2014
Date of Publication: 3 June 2014
Inspection Report published 03 June 2014 PDF | 91.33 KB

People should be cared for in safe and accessible surroundings that support their health and welfare (outcome 10)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are in safe, accessible surroundings that promote their wellbeing.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 30 April 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff and talked with commissioners of services.

Our judgement

People who used the service, staff and visitors were not protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

Reasons for our judgement

At our last inspection in November 2013 we made a compliance action in this outcome area because we found a number of issues which had a minor impact on people who used the service.

At this follow up inspection we found the provider had made improvements.

We saw the boxes of papers had been removed from the lounge and hallway, which made the home less cluttered. The utility room had also been de-cluttered. The accessibility to the stairs had been improved by removing the stair lift and reducing the number of items on the coat rack.

We looked at two people’s rooms and found they had furniture to put their ornaments on. The commode, which belonged to a person who no longer lived in the home, had now been removed from the person’s room.

We saw evidence that an up to date current portable appliance testing (PAT) test had been carried out to ensure that electrical devices were safe.

The Fire Safety Inspector visited the home in December 2013 and noted there was a large step to the front door which led directly onto the pavement. They considered that placing an additional step would create a trip hazard outside on the public footpath. They advised that an additional hand rail to the right hand side would allow any persons leaving these premises by the front door, two hand holds. We found there was only one hand rail at the front of the house and a risk assessment had not been carried out in relation to mitigating the risk when people accessed the house via the street.

The Fire Safety Inspector found there was a full evacuation procedure in place and the manager was aware of evacuation regime. We saw evidence that weekly fire alarm tests were carried out and a fire drill had been completed in November 2013. People had their own personal evacuation plans in place regarding how they would be evacuated in the event of a fire.

An independent health and safety company carried out an audit in October 2013 and found the legionella risk to be minimal due to a new combi boiler being installed and the water tank had been removed. However, there was no evidence that the provider had carried out a risk assessment regarding the legionella risk and the management of this, including water temperature checks.

We found window restrictors were not in place on the first floor. The windows opened fully which meant there was a danger people could fall from a height. There was no evidence this risk had been considered by the manager. This issue was raised immediately with the manager.

We were informed a clinical waste collection was in place. However, the manager was unable to provide a waste transfer note to demonstrate this waste was disposed of safely.

A formal house cleaning schedule was introduced on the day of our inspection to ensure the home remained safe and clean.

We found the home remained in need of redecoration. We saw redecoration work had begun on the hallway. However, due to cracks found on the walls, the services of a structural engineer had been engaged which had delayed the renovation. It was unclear as to why, in the meantime, the redecoration of people’s rooms had not commenced. We spoke with two people who told us they had chosen a colour scheme and wallpaper for their rooms. However, the timescale for the redecoration of people’s rooms had not been discussed or agreed with them. The manager provided us with a redecoration plan. This plan had not been discussed or agreed with the people who lived at the home. Their views had not been considered as to which part of the home they wished to receive priority in the redecoration plan. We also considered the redecoration timescales in relation to the people’s rooms, two months for each bedroom, was not reasonable. We have asked the manager to review this.

Overall we found, the provider had not taken appropriate steps to provide care in an environment that was adequately maintained.