Primrose Villa Care Home

Primrose Villa Care Home ls located in the Standish area of Wigan and provides personal care and support for up to 15 people in one adapted building. Accommodation is across two floors with all communal areas located on the ground floor.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they were happy living at Primrose Villa, were offered choices and involved in making decisions about the care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were happy with the food provided and said they got enough to eat and drink. People’s weight was monitored consistently, with clear actions taken when unplanned weight loss noted. People had access to a GP or other medical professionals as required, including a dental hygienist who completed visits to the home.

The home used a range of audits and monitoring tools to assess the quality and safety of the environment and care provided, with action plans generated and addressed timely. People’s views were sought through regular meetings and surveys. Staff felt supported in their roles and told us the change in management had had a positive impact on the home and care provided.

We found the home to be clean, with effective cleaning and infection control processes in place.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published November 2020). At our last inspection we recommended the provider used nutritional monitoring tools in line with guidance, reviewed the system for documenting weight loss and action taken, explored dental options for people and reviewed the home’s audit process and schedule. At this inspection we found the provider had acted on each recommendation and made noticeable improvements.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. We undertook a focused inspection to check the provider had addressed the recommendations made at the last inspection. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Effective and Well-Led which contained the previous recommendations.

The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service is good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Primrose Villa Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Primrose Villa Care Home is located in the Standish area of Wigan and provides personal care and support for up to 15 people in one adapted building. Accommodation is across two floors with all communal areas located on the ground floor.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We found improvements were required with weight monitoring, access to dental care, some aspects of the auditing process and the timeliness with which identified actions were addressed.

People were complimentary about the food provided and said they got enough to eat and drink. People’s weight was checked and recorded consistently. However, the system used to monitor unplanned weight loss and document actions taken required strengthening.

We have made a recommendation about how weight loss is assessed and documented.

People told us they had access to a GP or other medical professionals as required. Basic oral care information was included in people’s care files, however, none of the people we spoke with could remember seeing a dentist. The registered manager confirmed people were not currently registered with a dentist.

We have made a recommendation about the provider investigating dental care options for people.

People were happy living at the home. They were offered choice and had their consent sought before staff commenced any care or support. Care plans demonstrated people had been involved in planning and reviewing their care in line with their wishes.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The home used a range of audits and monitoring tools to assess the quality and safety of the environment and care provided. A continuous improvement plan was used to record required actions and report on progress. However, actions identified had not always been addressed timely and the frequency with which some audits were completed required review.

We have made a recommendation the provider reviews the current audit process and schedule.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection (and update)

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published June 2019) and there were two breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found some improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations, although remains requires improvement. The service has been rated requires improvement for the last two inspections

Why we inspected

We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Effective and Well-Led which contain those requirements.

The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has remained requires improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Primrose Villa Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Primrose Villa Care Home ls located in the Standish area of Wigan and provides personal care and support for up to 15 people. At the time of the inspection there were 13 people living at the home, although one person was currently in hospital and would not be returning, as they now required nursing care.

People’s experience of using this service:

We found improvements were required with the providers adherence to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and management of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), the robustness of the auditing process and the involving of people through resident meetings and questionnaires.

People and their relatives were positive about the standard of care provided, telling us they felt safe and well looked after. Staff had been trained in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify and report any concerns.

Staff, people and the relative we spoke with, felt enough staff were deployed to safely meet people’s needs. We did note staffing levels were not consistent throughout the week, with more on some days than others. We recommended the registered manager consider how staff were being deployed.

The home was clean throughout with effective infection control processes in place.

Medicines were managed safely, by staff who had received training and been assessed as competent.

Care files contained detailed risk assessments, which had been regularly reviewed to reflect people’s changing needs. This ensured staff had the necessary information to help minimise risks to people living at the home.

Staff spoke positively about the support and training provided. Staff completed an induction training programme upon commencing employment and on-going training was provided. Supervision was completed to provide staff with an opportunity to discuss their roles, any areas for improvement and future goals.

People told us staff were kind, caring and treated them with dignity and respect. Staff clearly knew the people they supported, which was evident in the interactions we observed.

Care files contained personalised information about the people who lived at the home and how they wished to be supported and cared for.

Peoples’ social and recreational needs were met through an activities programme, facilitated by activity co-ordinator and staff members. A mix of activities were organised throughout the week which catered for all interests and abilities.

The home had a range of systems and procedures in place to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the service, although these needed strengthening. A home improvement plan had been completed to promote continuous improvement.

For more details please see the full report either below or on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

At our last inspection the home was rated as good (report published 01 May 2018). The home is now rated as requires improvement. We will maintain contact with the provider until the next inspection to monitor the action they are taking to improve the rating to at least good.

Why we inspected:

This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received. Inspection timescales are based on the rating awarded at the last inspection and any information and intelligence received since we inspected.

Enforcement:

Please see the ‘action we have told the provider to take’ section towards the end of the report.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor information and intelligence we receive about the home and will return to re-inspect in line with our timescales for ‘requires improvement’ services, which is within 12 months. However, if any information of concern is received, we may inspect sooner.

Primrose Villa is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home has 15 beds and is situated in the Standish area of Wigan. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people living at the home.

The home was last inspected on 23 and 24 November 2016, when we rated the service as ‘requires improvement’ overall and in the key lines of enquiry (KLOE’s); safe, effective, responsive and well-led. The home was rated good in the KLOE caring. We also identified four breaches in three of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were in relation to staffing, person centred care and good governance. We also made two recommendations in relation to the recording of fluids and ensuring the environment was dementia friendly.

At this inspection we identified one continuing breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, in relation to good governance. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the end of the full version of this report.

At the time of the inspection the home had a registered manager. 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.

All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe, and enjoyed living at Primrose Villa. Relatives were also complimentary about the standard of care provided. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report concerns. The home had appropriate safeguarding policies and reporting procedures in place, although there had not been the requirement to make a safeguarding referral since the last inspection.

We found the home to be clean with appropriate infection control processes in place. Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent the spread of infection and the home employed a housekeeper, who ensured all communal areas, bathrooms and bedrooms were clean and tidy.

Both people using the service and staff we spoke with told us enough staff were deployed to meet needs. The home used a system to determine safe staffing levels, which we saw tallied with the rotas.

We saw medicines were stored, handled and administered safely and effectively. All necessary documentation was in place and was completed consistently. Staff responsible for administering medicines were trained and had their competency assessed annually.

Staff spoke positively about the training available. We saw staff had completed an induction programme upon commencing employment and on-going training was provided to ensure skills and knowledge were up to date. Staff also confirmed they received regular supervision and annual appraisals, which along with the completion of monthly team meetings, meant they were supported in their roles.

Meal times were observed to be a positive experience, with people being supported to eat where they chose. Staff engaged in conversation with people and encouraged them throughout the meal. We saw drinks were available in all communal areas throughout the home and people were supported and encouraged to drink on a regular basis.

Throughout the inspection we observed positive and appropriate interactions between the staff and people who used the service. Staff were seen to be caring and treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Our observations showed staff clearly knew the people they supported and had formed positive working relationships. People told us they felt comfortable in speaking to the staff about any issues or concerns.

Both the registered manager and staff we spoke to demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is used when someone needs to be deprived of their liberty in their best interest. We saw the service was working within the principles of the MCA and had followed the correct procedures when making DoLS applications.

We looked at four care files which contained detailed, personalised information about the people who used the service and how they wished to be cared for. Each file contained detailed care plans and risk assessments, which helped ensure their needs were being met and their safety maintained.

We saw a varied activity programme was provided, with people’s likes and interests being catered for as much as possible. People’s engagement had been captured in their care file.

We saw relative and resident meetings had been held quarterly, with minutes kept on file. People’s views about their care had been captured via a resident of the day process.

The home had a range of systems and procedures in place to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the service. Audits were completed on differing timescales, depending on the area being assessed and covered a wide range of areas including medication, care files, infection control, health and safety and meal time experience. Provider level audits had also been completed, to provide additional oversight and governance. However we noted neither auditing or risk assessment processes had identified the lack of radiator covers.

Primrose Villa is a 15 bed residential care home situated in the Standish area of Wigan. Accommodation is provided over two floors with wheel chair access to all floors via a fully automatic lift. The home has parking facilities for eight cars and a large garden area to the rear of the property. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people living at the home.

The home was last inspected on 10 and 15 February 2016, when we rated the service as ‘inadequate’ overall. We also identified six breaches of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were in relation to maintaining a safe environment, staff recruitment, management of medicines, records, staffing levels and governance.

At this inspection we found the service had made improvements in regards to the management of medicines, safe recruitment practices and record keeping, however identified four breaches in three of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were in relation to staffing levels, person centred care and good governance. You can see what actions we told the provider to take at the back of this report. We also made two recommendations in relation to the recording of fluids and ensuring the environment was dementia friendly.

At the time of the inspection the home had a registered manager. ‘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.’

We saw that overall the home was clean and had appropriate infection control processes in place. The service employed a housekeeper who was responsible for the cleanliness of both the communal areas and people’s rooms. Cleaning equipment was stored safely and securely.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe. The home had appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures in place, with instructions on how to report any safeguarding concerns to the local authority. Staff were all trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and had a good knowledge of how to identify and report any safeguarding or whistleblowing concerns.

Most of the staff we spoke with told us enough were employed to meet people’s needs; however one said an additional carer would be beneficial. People using the service also had mixed views with some believing there to be enough, whilst others commented on long waiting times and the need for an extra staff member. From our observations during inspection and reviewing various records, we noted that people were often left unsupervised in the lounge and dining area, whilst staff attended to people’s needs in other parts of the home.

People using the service also provided differing opinions on the activity programme provided by the home. Some stated they were satisfied with what was on offer whilst others did not believe enough activities were planned, and what was scheduled wasn’t of interest to them. Two people stated they enjoyed going out of the home, such as for walks to the local shop, however this happened very infrequently as there was not enough staff to facilitate this.

We looked at three care files in detail and each contained detailed information about the people who used the service and how they wished to be cared for. Each file contained comprehensive care plans and risk assessments, which helped ensure people’s needs were being met and their safety maintained. People and their relatives had been asked if and how often they wanted to be involved in reviewing their care. We looked at an additional four files to capture people’s opinions and saw that the majority only wanted to be informed of any changes; however one person had requested to be involved in regular reviews of their care plan, which had not occurred.

Both the registered manager and staff we spoke to demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is used when someone needs to be deprived of their liberty in their best interest. We saw the service was working within the principles of the MCA and had followed the correct procedures when making DoLS applications. At the time of our inspection the 10 applications were still awaiting assessment.

We saw medicines were stored, handled and administered safely and effectively. All necessary documentation was in place and was completed consistently. Staff responsible for administering medicines were trained and had their competency assessed.

Staff spoke positively about the training available and confirmed that statutory sessions were refreshed as per company policy. We saw all staff had completed an induction programme and both new and some existing staff had been enrolled on the care certificate. Requests for additional training in specific areas, such as dementia and managing challenging behaviour had been acknowledged and sessions organised.

Staff told us they completed bi-monthly supervisions, and attended monthly team meetings. However we did not see evidence that team meetings were held as frequently as reported, with only three meetings documented in the staff meeting file, nevertheless staff told us they felt supported in their roles and there was an open door policy should they wish to discuss any concerns.

During meal times people were able to make choices about where they sat and what they ate, with menu options being provided at point of service. People told us they enjoyed the food and received enough to eat and drink. Drinks were available on tables throughout the day and a water cooler had recently been installed for people to use. Food and fluid charts were in place, however our observations showed that not everything consumed was being recorded, as staff did not always observe what people had drank.

Throughout the inspection we observed positive and appropriate interactions between the staff and people who used the service. Staff were seen to be caring and treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People who used the service were complimentary about the staff and the standard of care received.

We saw that relative and resident meeting minutes were almost 12 months old and there had been no recent attempts to capture the views of people using the service or their relatives, through completion of quality assurance questionnaires. People we spoke to told us nobody ever asked them for their views, though they would be happy to provide them.

The home had a range of systems and procedures in place to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the service. Audits were completed on differing timescales, depending on the area being assessed and covered a wide range of areas including medication, care files, infection control, health and safety and meal time experience. All audits contained sections for action points although we saw these were not carried out consistently. We also noted the audits did not always effectively capture issues they had been designed to detect.

Primrose Villa Care Home is a 15 bed residential care home situated in the Standish area of Wigan. The service has car parking facilities and bedrooms are located on two floors. There was a bathroom, wet-room with a shower and shared toilet facilities. One bedroom at the home was en-suite. At the time of our visit there were 14 people living at the home.

At this inspection we identified breaches of six of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were in relation to maintaining a safe environment, staff recruitment, management of medicines, records, staffing levels and governance. You can see what actions we told the provider to take at the back of this report. We are also considering our options in relation to enforcement regarding some of these breaches and will update the section at the end of this report once any action has concluded.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our visit. 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.

We found issues in relation to the safety of the environment at the home. We found one of the first floor bathroom windows was in a poor state of repair. The window frame was rotten and there was a gap between the window pane and the frame in one corner, which meant the window was not secure or safe. We also found many of the window restrictors on the first floor were not operating correctly, which meant the windows could be opened without restriction. These issues meant people were being placed at risk.

Medicines were not being managed safely. We identified there had been a medicines error the week prior to our inspection where people had not received their night-time medicines. The registered manager was not aware of this until we alerted them. Staff told us they thought the issue had been in relation to staff on that shift not having received medicines training.

We had not received any notifications of safeguarding incidents at the service in the year prior to our inspection. Staff we spoke with were aware of how to identify possible signs of abuse or neglect and of the appropriate actions to take to report any concerns. People told us they felt safe living at the home.

Care plans had been regularly reviewed, although some lacked detail. We also found care was not always being provided in line with the care plans. For example, we found one person’s dietary requirements were not clearly or accurately recorded in the care plan, and there were inconsistencies when we asked staff what support was being provided. Another person’s care plan did not accurately reflect the support they were currently receiving in relation to mobility. This increased the risk of the care being provided not being appropriate to people’s needs or not meeting their preferences.

We found staffing levels were lower at weekends than during the week, with two care staff supporting all the people at the home at times. This included people who required two staff to assist them in relation to various care tasks, including mobility. This would mean other people at the home would be left without available staff support at times. There was no clear process for assessing staffing level requirements based on people’s needs.

People told us they liked the food provided and said they were able to request alternatives if they didn’t like what was on the menu. Presentation of pureed meals could be improved as all items in the meal had been blended together. We also found food and fluid intake was not always accurately recorded for people who were at risk nutritionally.

Staff were provided with induction training prior to starting their role. However, there were gaps in records of training and some staff said they would like more training. Regular supervision and team meetings were carried out.

Interactions between staff and people living at the home were kind and caring. People told us they liked the staff and the staff we spoke with told us they would be happy for a friend or relative to move to the home. One relative told us the home had a personal touch due to it being smaller in size. People told us they could make other choices such as when they went to bed or were assisted with bathing. One relative told us their family member was sometimes given a clip-board and went round with staff whilst completing certain duties. They told us this was an effective way of engaging with their relative and meeting their needs.

During the inspection we observed people being supported to do a jigsaw puzzle, the hairdresser visiting and a short balloon game. There was little else observed in the way of activity or stimulation for people. The activity time-table displayed was out of date and records of activities showed some people had not been supported to participate in activities for long periods. Some people told us they had enough to do as they liked to read or were able to go out on their own. However, others told us they could get bored.

People told us they would be confident to raise a complaint with the manager or a member of staff if they were unhappy about anything. People and staff told us the manager was approachable and would listen to them. Staff told us they were happy working at the home and enjoyed their jobs.

The home had not submitted any notifications to CQC in the past year. Services such as Primrose Villa are required to inform CQC of significant events such as safeguarding, deaths and serious injuries. We found evidence that the home had not informed CQC of a serious injury as required.

Audits relating to the quality and safety of the service were carried out by the registered manager and fed back to more senior managers. The audits we saw showed the home had scored highly in nearly all areas, including in relation to health and safety, maintenance and medicines. The audits had not been effective in identifying the risks we found in relation to the environment, care plans, or medicines. Staff personnel files had been audited, however, the audits did not identify that full employment histories were not always recorded as required.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘Special measures’. Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration. For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

We asked the following five questions.

Is the service safe?

The people who lived at the home and their relatives were pleased with the care provided and felt their views were respected and listened to. One person said: 'It's small, homely and very secure.'

The staff worked in a safe and hygienic way and used appropriate protective clothing when providing personal care and handling food. There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people living at the home and a member of the management team was available on call in case of emergencies.

Staff personnel records contained all of the information required by the Health and Social Care Act. This meant the provider could demonstrate staff employed to work at the home were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people living at the home.

The registered manager and the staff we spoke with understood the importance of safeguarding vulnerable adults,and could identify potential abuse and knew how to report any incidents of abuse. Members of staff understood the whistleblowing policy and were confident to use it. One staff member said: 'If I saw anything I did not like I wouldn't put up with it .'

Is the service effective?

People told us they were happy with the care they received. One relative said 'I think that the home is fulfilling her needs.'

Care records confirmed people's preferences, interests, needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. One person said: 'I don't think anyone has any complaints about it.'

We heard from staff information was shared very effectively. Several ways of sharing information included handovers, daily records, and monthly reviews with relatives.

Is the service caring?

We saw people were supported by kind, friendly and attentive staff. Care workers showed patience and encouragement when supporting people. One member of staff said: 'I concentrate on the residents. I don't talk to other staff whilst I'm supporting them.' One person using the service said: 'The staff are very friendly, welcoming and caring.'

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they were admitted to the home and were carefully described so care workers knew exactly what tasks to undertake to support them. Changes in people's care needs were reported to the senior carer and they briefed care staff at handovers.

One person who lived at the home told us about the range of activities they could access and said: 'We usually find something to do. I like walking to the shops and the school.'

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the culture of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. One relative said: 'I know exactly what is going on. There's good passing on of information.' People told us staff listened to their concerns. The registered manager met informally with families, was available whenever they visited and hosted meetings to discuss concerns and consult on any proposed changes. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and said: 'If I have any problems I can just bring them up. They give me support. They help us.'

During this visit we saw that improvements had been made in the identified areas.

We saw that people were being supported by staff at mealtimes in an appropriate way and observed the staff to be interacting well with each other and the people living at the home who they treated with dignity and respect.

One person living at the service that we spoke with told us how they enjoyed playing on the Wii Game and another that they enjoyed living there. A relative told us ''The staff are excellent'' and that they had guided them through the process of their relative moving in.

We saw that staff interacted well with the people living at the service and treated them with respect.

The service employed an activities coordinator and we saw reports in the newsletter of events that had taken place since our last visit.

However, it was recorded in a visitors concerns document by staff that a relative was concerned about the maintenance of the decor and this included the cleanliness of the lounge carpet. A staff member and the manager told us that they had addressed the issue as best as they were able to and that the concern would be passed on to the directors.

On the day of the inspection we found that all of the people living at the home were well groomed and presented.

The people living at the service that we spoke with told us that they were well looked after. One person who lived there told us that they had their breakfast at 8 o 'clock but could have it at any time that they wanted. A relative told us that '' All of the staff are kind and they make chips especially for my mum.''

We saw that staff interacted well with the people living at the service and treated them with respect.

The service employed an activities coordinator and there were a variety of events advertised.

Following the inspection, arrangements were made for a fire officer to visit the premises due to our concerns with the fire exit doors.