Preston care home rapped over safety concerns

REQUIRES IMPROVEMENT: Fairmont Residential Home, Fulwood
REQUIRES IMPROVEMENT: Fairmont Residential Home, Fulwood
Have your say

A care home has been ordered to improve after inspectors found safety regulations had been breached.

The Care Quality Commission raised concerns about fire safety rules, residents having access to potentially hazardous chemicals and a lack of window locks at Fairmont Residential Home in Watling Street Road, Fulwood, Preston.

We identified three environmental safety issues that compromised people’s safety during the inspection

The home was given a ‘requires improvement’ rating after a recent (CQC) inspection.

The care home refused to comment but the CQC report said the manager at the home did address some of their concerns about obstructions to fire exits, wedged open doors, access to hazardous chemicals and unrestricted windows.

The CQC report said: “We identified three environmental safety issues that compromised people’s safety during the inspection.

“These included a chair that was found obstructing a main fire exit on the first floor corridor area.

“We saw two bedroom doors had been wedged open to prevent closure. We found that people who used the service had access to liquid chemicals that were hazardous to health because the laundry area had been left unlocked.

“The registered manager addressed our concerns immediately.

“Fairmont is located across three levels. We found that windows on all levels did not have suitable restrictors to protect people’s safety and security at the service.”

The home provides personal care and accommodation for adults with physical disability, mental health needs, people living with dementia and/or associated social care needs.

The CQC’s unannounced inspection on May, 20 judged that the service given requires improvement on whether it was safe, effective, responsive and well-led but it was given a good rating for caring.

The CQC report said: “We found that the environment was not designed to enable people to maintain their independence. Signage was poor and did not enable people living with cognitive and or visual impairment.”

The report praised the caring attitude of staff but questioned some sanitary procedures.

It said: “We received consistently positive comments from people who used the service about the attitude and approach of staff.

“We observed staff follow safe procedures when dealing with soiled waste. However sluice room equipment was not available to enable sanitation of soiled equipment such as commodes.”