You are here

Archived: Bevan House

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 14 October 2011
Date of Publication: 14 November 2011
Inspection Report published 14 November 2011 PDF | 87.24 KB

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 reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 14/10/2011, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

The registered provider had met the compliance actions for this outcome set at our last review of compliance, however we found that they had not taken appropriate steps to ensure the safety of people who use the service in the event of a fire. We have referred our findings onto the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Croydon’s Fire safety Team.

User experience

On this occasion we did not speak to people about this outcome area.

Other evidence

At our last review of compliance we found that the seating in the lounge was badly worn and damaged and uncomfortable to sit on and needed to be replaced.

We found that one persons room was extremely cluttered with personal belongings, this left very limited floor space for them walk on and even access their bed. This person would be a risk in the event of a fire.

We found an old bed in one person’s bedroom and ladders and rubble in the garden that needed to be removed.

We found that water temperatures in the bathroom were unsafe.

The improvement plan stated that the provider would be placing an order for a new set of sofas and people who use the service were involved in making a choice. The old bed had been removed from the bedroom. The rubble would be removed from the garden before the end of June. The water temperature had been adjusted and daily records will be ongoing.

During a tour of the premises we found that the worn out furniture in the lounge had all been replaced with new leather seating and a new set of tables and chairs.

We also found that the rubble in the rear garden had been removed.

We tested the temperature of hot water emanating from the ground floor bath and found it to be a safe 41 degrees Celsius. We saw records being kept by staff that showed us all the services hot water outlets were being tested on a daily basis. The acting manager demonstrated a good understanding of what was considered safe water temperatures to be used in baths in a care home for vulnerable adults.

We looked at fire safety records; these showed us the care homes fire alarm system was being tested on a weekly basis and that two fire evacuation drills involving all of the people who use the service and staff had been carried out in the last six months in line with recognised best fire safety guidance.

However, despite records indicating the services fire alarm was being tested at regular intervals the acting manager told us it would be difficult to give us a demonstration because they did not have a key to activate the homes fire points. They told us the only way they were able to test the fire alarm was to either break the fire point glass or dismantle it with a screw driver. The acting manager eventually activated the fire alarm by removing the glass from the fire point on the first floor landing. The alarm clearly worked and was audible throughout the care home. We advised the acting manager that both methods they currently used to test the services fire alarm system were wholly inappropriate.

We asked the acting manager to walk us through a fire evacuation drill of the care home. They took us through the kitchen to the rear garden and told us this was the place people would be expected to assemble in the event of the fire alarm being sounded. The acting manager confirmed the side-gate was the gardens only fire exit. The acting manager also told us they were not able to open the gate as we had requested because he did not have the key for the padlock about their person or know the combination code for it.

Staff training records showed that the majority of staff had not received training on fire safety.

We saw individualised fire safety risk assessments that had been carried out in respect of everyone who uses the service, but both the operations and acting managers said they were not aware of a fire risk assessment being undertaken for the building since they had been in charge at Bevan House.

We advised the services operations and acting manager that we would share our concerns about the care homes current fire safety arrangements with the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA). We also advised the services management to contact the LFEPA as a matter of urgency to discuss ways of improving fire safety and prevention at Bevan House.

Following our visit we referred our findings onto the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Croydon’s Fire safety Team