You are here

Archived: Fistral House Residential Home

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 March 2013
Date of Publication: 24 April 2013
Inspection Report published 24 April 2013 PDF

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

Meeting 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 24 March 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

Fistral House meets the needs of the people who live there.

Reasons for our judgement

Fistral House was a large detached property, situated in Pentire, which is approximately two miles west of Newquay. There were gardens at the front and rear of the home. At the front of the home there was a 180 degree view of the sea from the front garden and of the rooms. Car parking was available for staff, people who used the service and their relatives.

We spoke with majority of the people who lived in the home and they all said they were happy with the facilities provided. People told us they could freely move around the home and they did not feel restricted. People were happy with their bedrooms and said they could spend time in these when they wished.

Accommodation was situated on two floors. On the ground floor there was a lounge with a television, a dining room and a kitchen. The home had a conservatory at the front and people told us they enjoyed sitting in the room and looking at the sea. There were four bedrooms situated on the ground floor with the remaining seven bedrooms situated on the first floor. A stair case with a chair lift connected the two floors. All of the bedrooms had an en suite toilet, with a wash hand basin. Bedrooms had a shower cubicle, although due to people’s frailty or disabilities, most of these were not used. There was a shared bathroom on the first floor, and shared toilets on both floors.

The home was furnished and decorated, in a domestic style, to a satisfactory standard. Some of the decorations both inside and outside the home were beginning to look in need of refreshing. However the home was clean, homely, the lounges and bedrooms were pleasantly decorated and comfortable. The home was warm on the day we inspected.

There was a well equipped kitchen where meals and drinks were prepared. This had been recently inspected by the Environmental Health Officer and standards were deemed as satisfactory.

Each person had their own bedroom. Bedrooms we saw were all clean, well furnished and well decorated. People could bring their own possessions and furniture, and were able to personalise their rooms. This was apparent from walking around the home. Bedrooms had a lock on the door. Two of the bedrooms were registered to accommodate two people although we understood both of these were currently and routinely let to an individual.

We checked what health and safety precautions were in place which ensured the home was safe. The home had an integrated fire alarm system. External contractors maintained the system and the fire extinguishers. Staff checked the fire alarm call points, emergency lighting and fire doors worked, and escape routes were clear. Although frequency of these tests was usually in line with recommendations of the fire officer, on some occasions, testing of the fire alarm call points was not completed weekly. For example recent tests showed the call points were tested on the 7 February, 18 February, 10 March and 20 March 2013. The provider might like to note fire prevention equipment testing needs to be completed in line with the recommendations of the fire officer.

A system of health and safety risk assessment was in place. This included systems which ensured the risk of Legionnaires’ disease was minimised. However some of the risk assessments needed to be recompleted as they had not been rewritten and /or reviewed since 2010.

We inspected records which showed gas and portable electrical appliances had been tested and were deemed as safe. The electrical circuit (hardwire) had not been tested since 2004. The provider might like to note that although in 2004 the electrical circuit was deemed as ‘satisfactory,’ the circuit is legally required to be tested every five years.