We came across this article about a company neglecting advice to remove asbestos from their premises. Asbestos should always be removed as soon as possible by a licensed asbestos removal company. Failure to do so can put yourself, staff members and anyone at the property in danger.

A laboratory-testing firm failed to remove asbestos from its Tyneside premises despite being warned by one of its sister companies, which specialises in asbestos surveys, that workers were being exposed to the hazardous substance.

In July 2010, the HSE received a complaint that Exova (UK) Ltd had failed to deal with damaged asbestos at its premises in Shields Road, Newcastle. Inspectors visited the site and found that the company had been advised to remove the substance on two separate occasions.

Newcastle Magistrates’ Court heard that a survey of the premises was carried out on 3 October 2008, which identified damaged asbestos in two separate areas of the site. The firm was advised that the asbestos needed to be removed, repaired, or sealed off.

A second survey was conducted in February 2010, which identified that the company had failed to act upon the previous recommendations and that workers were being exposed to the damaged asbestos.

When the HSE visited the site on 15 July 2010, inspectors found that no efforts had been made to remove the asbestos and employees were continuing to access and work in the areas where the hazardous substance was present.

HSE inspector Andrew Woodhall said: “Exova (UK) Ltd used its own internal, industry-accredited asbestos testing company to undertake surveys, but then failed to take the recommended action despite knowing their employees worked in at-risk areas.

“Anyone who is responsible for non-domestic premises, such as, factories must take reasonable steps to find if there are materials containing asbestos in their premises. They should then prepare a plan on how they will manage the risks and take the necessary steps to put those plans into action.

“Exova failed to take the majority of these steps and needlessly and inexplicably chose to put its employees at risk.”

Exova (UK) Ltd appeared in court on 4 April and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.4(9)(c), reg.4(10)(b), and reg.16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. It was fined £12,000 for each offence and ordered to pay £8000 in costs.

In mitigation, the company said it immediately sealed off the area on the advice of the HSE, until a licenced contractor came to remove the asbestos. It admitted to making a mistake by not acting on the recommendations of the survey and expressed its regret for putting workers at risk. The company had no previous convictions and entered an early guilty plea.

STORM offers asbestos surveying on properties, we also offer training in asbestos awareness and much more. Visit the asbestos section of our website to find out what we offer;http://stormconsultancyuk.com/content/asbestos.html

Contact us for any information and quotes.

Office – 0845 894 6342

Email – info@stormconsultancyuk.com

Thursday 15th March 2012

Surprise safety checks are taking place on building sites across Britain after a rise in the number of deaths. Fifty people were killed and 2,298 seriously injured in 2010-2011. That reverses a trend that had seen fatalities fall in the previous four years.

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) bosses say they’re concerned about smaller refurbishment projects because more than half of all deaths take place on that type of site. In the previous 12 months a total of 41 people died.

Chief executive of the National Federation of Builders, Julia Evans, said in a statement: “Construction is seen as a high-risk industry and within construction, refurbishment sites are shown to have a higher rate of accidents. ”The National Federation of Builders works hard to promote the importance of safety by communicating those messages to small businesses and through our Stay Safe, Stay Away campaign that warns children of the dangers of building sites.”

Jen Deeney had only been married 13 weeks when her 25-year-old husband Kieron was killed on a refurbishment site. She said: “We hadn’t picked up the wedding photos or seen the DVD. Kieron Deeney had not been married long when he fell to his death ”You go from a stage of everything being exciting, to pure and utter devastation.”

Kieron was working on a hotel project when the accident happened. ”He fell just over 30 feet (9m),” she explained. “His head injuries were so severe that he was pronounced dead at the site.”

Health and safety inspector Jacqui Western says there are a number of reasons why refurbishment projects are more dangerous.

She said: “It depends on who is managing the project. Sometimes [with] smaller jobs, you have contractors who are not aware of health and safety responsibilities.

“Some of it can be lack of knowledge. Some of it can be intentional cost cutting.”

Don’t let your business fail one of the dreaded mystery checks – contact STORM Consultancy for Health & Safety Checks, advice and to answer any burning questions you may have on 0845 894 6342 or email us at info@stormconsultancyuk.

The event was held as part of the Global Entrepreneurship Week 2012, which was conveniently being held by Liverpool this year. The event is regarded as the ‘world’s largest celebration of entrepreneurship’ and saw entrepreneurs and political figures such as Sir Richard Branson, Sir Terry Leahy, Martha Lane Fox, and many more visit Liverpool ahead of the GEC Summit on the 13^th March.

Jonathan had an excellent night, and was extremely honoured to be able to go to the event; he met with some great people, and found it interesting to talk to people from all different backgrounds and industries. There were people from over 120 different countries at the event, who all came together to celebrate the global entrepreneurship week.

The day started extra early for the STORM team, with delegates then beginning to arrive from 8:30am onwards. Tea and coffee were served for the early birds and the conference kicked off at 9:30am. The conference started with STORM’s MD, Jonathan Cunningham MBE warmly welcoming everyone to the conference which then led nicely into the first speaker. We had a short break at 11:30, (where everyone enjoyed more tea and coffee) before starting the final run of the conference. With a 1pm finish, delegates were able to return to their work or enjoy the rest of their day off satisfied with the amount of important information they had just received.

General feedback of the day was excellent, the exhibitors were especially pleased with the day as they gained a considerable amount of business from the event; speakers were also pleased with the turnout and enjoyed speaking to such a large amount of delegates truly interested in what they had to say.

Delegates overall were also happy with the short and sharp pace of the conference, a 30 minute break in between meant they were not kept for too long without tea and coffee and were not looking at their watches every five minutes!

The second conference we held this year was our Annual Care Conference – 29^th Feb- , this time held at the Ramada Plaza Hotel, Southport, as we needed to ensure sufficient space for the amount of delegates booked onto this conference. We had over 320 delegates attend , so ending up considerably bigger than the previous. This time we targeted not only our loyal delegates from previous conferences, but also those based in the care sector. We aimed to provide anyone in the care sector with a spectrum of relevant topics in just one short conference, in just ONE morning!

This proved to work as we had delegates booked onto the conference from over 80 different care homes, not just in Southport but also branching out to Bootle, Blackpool and Liverpool.

The conference held a grand total of 18 trade stands, all of which specializing in providing services for those in the care industry. We had 9 fantastic speakers from CQC, Alzheimer’s Society; Queens court Hospice, RBS, and Merseyside Police. It was great to see some of our previous stand holders and delegates attending this conference, this provides us with the satisfaction that we are delivering great, time worthy conferences, beneficial to not only those working with vulnerable adults but with those in any kind of industry wanting to ensure their business is 100% safe.

For this conference we didn’t shy away from our usual – but preferred – half a day, short, sharp, but informative style. However, after the break we held a short Q&A session with the speakers, allowing the audience to ask any questions to any one of the speakers. This sparked off a debate amongst some of the speakers and audience members and had everyone intrigued and on the edge of their seats!

The conference finished on time; leaving us to reflect on the event we had just delivered. Feedback from the day was excellent- stands, again, were impressed by the amount of interest in their services, and speakers were delighted to have spoke to over 300 people, and enjoyed sharing their knowledge with people in the same industries as them.

We would like to thank everyone that has attended either, (or both) of our conferences that we had held so far this year, stay tuned for details of STORM’s next conference. Thank you to all of the speakers and stands who have attended our conferences, thank you to Adlib audio who helped with the amazing production of our care conference. Also, a big thank you to Colin Angus for the Photography and Chris Croft for Video who have provided us with excellent shots and footage of both of the events.

For more pictures of any of our conferences and more information about what we have coming up next…please visit our Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/pages/STORM-Consultancy/215411061823626?ref=tn_tnmn

Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found William Rogers, a carpenter and general handyman, had removed partition walls containing asbestos insulating board at the premises in Masons Way, Olton, on 27 January 2011.

Solihull Magistrates’ Court heard Mr Rogers had wrongly assumed he was dealing with asbestos cement, which does not require specialist contractors to remove it, and went ahead with the job. As a result, both he and the tenant, who has asked not to be named, were potentially exposed to asbestos dust.

Mr Rogers spread asbestos debris in the kitchen and on the communal stairs and loaded the removed pieces of asbestos insulating board into his car. By law it should have been disposed of by an approved carrier of asbestos waste.

The incident was discovered when a licensed asbestos removal contractor, who was working elsewhere in the building, spotted pieces of asbestos outside and alerted HSE. The court heard the area and Mr Rogers’ car had to be decontaminated.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE principal inspector Jo Anderson said:

“Tradespeople are highly likely to come across asbestos at some point in their career. They must make sure they are properly trained so that they can identify it and know what to do next and there is a wealth of guidance available on HSE’s website to help them.

“If they have not checked what kind of asbestos is present and they have not been trained to work with asbestos, they must not start work.

“The landlord had told William Rogers that the walls contained asbestos, yet he went ahead with the refurbishment without carrying out any checks. The tenant now has to live with the knowledge that he is at risk of developing a serious lung disease in years to come through no fault of his own.

“It is against the law for anyone to remove asbestos insulating board without a licence. Mr Rogers should never have disturbed this material, and he left a significant amount of asbestos debris in the building.

“It is fortunate that a licensed contractor alerted us to the incident on the day and as a result the contamination was dealt with promptly.”

William Rogers, of Rowlands Way, Yardley, pleaded guilty today to breaching Regulation 5 and Regulation 11(1)(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. He was fined £600 and ordered to pay £1,799 costs.

Asbestos is the biggest single cause of occupational deaths in the UK, with an estimated 4,000 people dying every year from related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.

Information on working safely with asbestos is available athttp://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/hiddenkiller/index.htm, which is specifically aimed at advising tradespeople on how to deal with asbestos, andwww.hse.gov.uk/asbestos.

STORM provides all aspects of asbestos consultancy and service.  Asbestos surveying, asbestos management, asbestos removal.  STORM Consultancy also provides engaging asbestos awareness for all trades.  Asbestos management training also available for senior managers who require greater detail of the legislation.  Contact STORM Consultancy on 0845 894 6342 or info@stormconsultancyuk.com

STORM Consultancy – Provides All event and safety management.  Contact STORM on 0845 894 6342 or www.stormconsultancyuk.com  Discounted rates for charities.  Why risk it?

Firework displays should be enjoyable and spectacular occasions – but they obviously need some responsible planning. The good news is that there is straightforward guidance to help you.

If you are organising a major public event, you will clearly need a robust and detailed approach to planning as well as professional involvement. If you are holding a local firework display, such as those organised by many sports clubs, schools or parish councils, you still need to plan responsibly, but the same level of detail is not necessary or expected. Below are some tips and guidance to help you.

Before the event:

• Think about who will operate the display. There is no reason why you should not light a display yourselves provided it only contains fireworks in categories 1, 2 and 3. but remember, catergory 4 fireworks may only be used by professional firework display operators. In untrained hands they can be lethal.
• Consider whether the site is suitable and large enough for your display, including a bonfire if you are having one. Is there space for the fireworks to land well away from spectators? Remember to check in daylight for overhead power lines and other obstructions. What is the direction of the prevailing wind? What would happen if it changed?
• Think about what you would do if things go wrong. Make sure there is someone who will be responsible for calling the emergency services
• Make sure you obtain the fireworks from a reputable supplier.
• If the display is to be provided by a professional firework display operator make sure that you are clear on who does what especially in the event of an emergency
• Ensure you have a suitable place to store the fireworks. Your firework supplier or local authority should be able to advise
• If you plan on selling alcohol the bar should be well away from the display site
• On the day of the event:
• Recheck the site, weather conditions and wind direction
• Don’t let anyone into the zone where the fireworks will fall – or let anyone other than the display operator or firing team into the firing zone or the safety zone around it
• Discourage spectators from bringing drink onto the site
• Don’t let spectators bring their own fireworks onto the site
• If you will also have a bonfire at the display then you should:
• Check the structure is sound and does not have small children or animals inside it before lighting it
• Not use petrol or paraffin to light the fire
• Have only one person responsible for lighting the fire. That person, and any helpers, should wear suitable clothing eg a substantial outer garment made of wool or other low-flammable material.
• Make sure that the person lighting the fire and any helpers know what to do in the event of a burn injury or clothing catching fire
• Never attempt to relight fireworks. Keep well clear of fireworks that have failed to go off

The morning after:

• Carefully check and clear the site. Dispose of fireworks safely. They should never be burnt in a confined space (eg a boiler)
• Additional points to consider if you are organising a major public display
• For major displays, particularly those involving category 4 ‘professional’ fireworks or very large number of spectators, a more robust approach is obviously needed.
• Plan and mark out the areas for spectators, firing fireworks (and a safety zone around it) as well as an area where the fireworks will fall
• Think about how people will get into and out of the site. Keep pedestrian and vehicle routes apart if possible. Mark exit routes clearly and ensure they are well lit. Ensure emergency vehicles can get access to the site
• Appoint enough stewards/marshals. Make sure they understand what they are to do on the night and what they should do in the event of an emergency
• Contact the emergency services and local authority. If your site is near an airport you may need to contact them
• Signpost the first aid facilities

Insurance

Although it is not required by health and safety law, if you are holding a public firework display, it’s a good idea to have public liability insurance. Bear in mind that not all companies are used to dealing with this type of event, and as with any other type of insurance, it’s worth shopping around: look for a company that’s used to insuring firework and other public events – you are likely to get much better deal and avoid unsuitable terms and conditions. If you have difficulty with the standard insurance terms, TALK to your insurer and find a way forward; they can be very helpful.

For FREE safety advice contact STORM on 0845 894 6342 or sign up for our news letter at www.stormconsultancyuk.com

Having been asked to write a review on the new CQC website, here you will find my thoughts as I guide you through the steps I undertook.  The article has been written in a “take you through it” style and as a colleague pointed out, if I had more time I could have written less.

In order to simplify both the public and providers access to information the CQC (Care Quality Commision) have spent £200k plus on redeveloping their website located at http://www.cqc.org.uk.  Not totally sure the cost is relevant but lets take a look.  At first glance you can quickly identify the area you wish to look at thanks to 5 well placed tabs.  For the purpose of this exercise we shall concentrate on the Care homes sector.

There is a lot of space wasted at the top of the page with three information bars above a huge banner.  I can understand the large navigation bar however as space is a premium more could have been done to make it even simpler to navigate – lots of scrolling up and down required.

To assess the site lets set a few criteria to search on:

1. Find information about a care home we are looking to use for Mum
2. Make a complaint or whistle blow
3. Rate a care home
4. Make a suggestion for improvement
5. Find a downloadable document to browse at our leisure – lets choose the “Provider Compliance Assessment” to search for.

So I think you will agree there is nothing that should be too hard there.  Our journey begins.

1.  Find information about a care home we are looking to use for Mum

Let’s find information about a care home with nursing in the town of Weymouth in Dorset.  From the home page, lets select the “care homes” button and instantly we are presented with a search box.  In here we put in the town of Weymouth and click search.

We quickly found the home on the first page.  Thumbs up CQC.  You can immediately see 3 ticks representing minimum compliance and 2 crosses where improvements are required (there is no other type of compliance – a home simply complies or not) .

The standard 5 areas assessed for compliance are:

1. Standards of treating people with respect and involving them in their care
2. Standards of providing care, treatment & support which meets people’s needs
3. Standards of caring for people safely & protecting them from harm
4. Standards of staffing
5. Standards of management

These improvements will be of varying degrees of seriousness and the CQC can act accordingly, if a home is non compliant it is within the powers of the CQC to let them correct the areas whilst still operating if they are deemed not serious enough for closure.  It is good to see straight away that the home we had in mind for dear old Mum is now questionable.  Even more so as the improvements required for compliance are stated to be from the last inspection in May 2011 – the crosses though have instantly made me concerned about placing a loved one here for care.

If we click on the home name we are taken further into the site.  Interestingly we can now expand the areas that have the crosses and ticks against them.  Looking at the list we can now see 6 standards – one new one has appeared that was not on the previous page? we can drill down on the two black crosses and read about the failings in these areas.  And there is a useful key at the bottom now that explains further what the symbols mean.  Two crosses – so the black cross is the ‘not so bad but enough to turn me off using the home’ – the red ones are ‘the ones to keep an eye on’!

Now we are still interested in this sixth tick, again, why is it not on the previous page? – let’s expand it and see what information we have here –

6.    Additional standards of management

Now we can see that the home is under the control of an acting manager, and that the acting manager in NOT registered with the CQC.  Outcome 24 has surprisingly been met despite this and the CQC do not find this an area for concern so the standard is presented a green tick.

Now we are going to look at the further information available to us about this standard.  We can clearly see the link “See our inspector’s full report about this standard from 19th May 2011” lets click it and see where it takes us.

Straight away we can see it’s meeting the standard as before, but this time it has a little more “evidence” from the inspector.  We can see the acting manager has been in post for six months and as yet has not had the opportunity to fill in the paperwork to the CQC?

Homes across the country are rejoicing as they seemingly can pass this standard without a registered manager.

Now we are feeling a little more aware of the site so we go back to one of the black crosses and expand it, again lets click on further information.  Wow – formal substantiated allegations of abuse…. Some strong language here but a pass is a pass.  Well so far its not looking good, We might have to find another home for poor old Mum.

A point to note is the right hand side of the page – it clearly shows this home is part of a larger company and it lists other services run by this larger company, great if you wanted to cross reference the homes to get an idea of the corporate culture towards complying to these standards.  I myself see this as a positive improvement, if it was there before I have to say I never noticed.

Now looking at the top of the page we can quickly see two other tabs.

The middle tab lets us view the inspector’s assessments and some comments from people visiting the home.  It’s the third tab that’s interesting though.  Named “Please tell us your experience”, effectively it’s a form but with areas for free text.  Straight away we can see that if you have urgent concerns there is a number you can call – that’s good.  You can also write positive or negative things in the form with an urgent concerns field and the option to let the CQC know if you intend to make a formal complaint too.

Whilst this clearly answers my question 2 stated at the beginning of this exercise I do wonder if this is too far into the website and a little cumbersome to get to and in a position only users of a service would find it?  All in all though so far I have to admit it has been simple to use and clear – even if we have had to scroll up and down a lot.

2.  Make a complaint or whistleblow

Now let’s say we have been working for a care home for the last year and found some practice that is abusive to the residents.  We wish to report this as the manager clearly takes no notice of us.  Back at the home page again.

Lets start by just typing the word complaint in the search box on the homepage, the search worked very fast and lots of links here but not really anything relevant at first glance.  Now just as I was about to click off (I’m an impatient browser) I see the last link ”how to complain about a health or social care service” could that be of use?  Lets look.  Well here we are presented with a pdf to download.  Lets do so and after flicking through to chapter 4 we find that they recommend that we complain to the home in question.  As I mentioned in my scenario that’s a no go, so reading on.  Ok, it would seem we have to complain to social services and we can get the details from the minefield that is direct.gov.uk.  A different result to my findings in my first point above.  I have to say I am a little disappointed in this result.  If there was a quick way to complain or whistle blow at the touch of a button even if it made us choose the home as part of the process and we ended up at the same form we found earlier on in the homes section it would have been better.  Do we really feel comfortable enough to write to the social services?  What if someone found out we complained?  I think you get my point.  Half good, half bad here – I find the water a bit muddy.

Now I’m feeling foolish – the 5 tabs I highlighted at the beginning – to the right is one called “Your Experience “– I never really noticed it with the black background before.

Straight away it has a complaints section, it’s tailored for every sector so lets choose the easy reading and scroll down, it appears that the CQC do not deal with individual complaints, so again we are redirected to the Social Services?  One would think the very form you can fill in on the third tab of the actual care home section could be sent to both the CQC and the Social Services for further investigation or analysis live by email?  I feel I should look into it more as i’m not quite happy with that response.

So sorry CQC it’s a thumbs down for me.

3.  Rate a care home

Back to the home page and this time we wish to give feedback on a fantastic home we know about in Leeds.

This is short and sweet – we now can quickly find the home and on the third tab “please tell us your experience”  we find the same form we identified in criteria 1.

In the form you can write some free text about your experience and leave a positive comment.  We can do so anonymously or leave your details and it’s very clear and easy to use.  I feel I’m starting to get the hang of this web lark.

4.  Make a suggestion or improvement

Now it’s surprisingly simple to let the CQC know what you think of the new site.  The banners I blatantly moaned about in the beginning of this article now glare at me in a shade of  yellow as they smugly point out in blue writing on a yellow background “What do you think? Please let us know”

A simple form is shown on clicking the link.  3 little questions,

1. Was there anything you couldn’t find?
2. Is there anything you think we should improve?
3. Are there any things you really like?

It could not be easier to let the CQC know what you feel about the site – a big thumbs up.

5.  Find a downloadable document to browse at my leisure – we randomly chose “Provider Compliance Assessment”

Ok there’s a big search box crying to be used so lets give that a try.  Lets type in “Provider Compliance Assessment” a little slower this time but  we get a page of results and bingo – first on the list, well done CQC.  We will pretend this never worked as otherwise it will be far too short a read.

So from the homepage we click the second tab – Care homes.   Realisation hits as we now realise that we won’t find anything here as its for those looking to use a service.  Back to the homepage and this time we select from the main CQC banner – “For organisations we regulate”.

Straight away, notice the “Blow the whistle banner” I feel a little foolish again now but why could I not find this earlier?

Under this there is a popular downloads section and a popular pages section.  We can clearly see legislation listed and reading down past notifications we find Compliance.  Clearly listed under compliance is “Provider Compliance Assessment” and clicking this takes me to an area where we can download all 16 files, brilliant and not to shabby.

To sum up:

It’s always easier to criticise and find fault, but I have to say I found what I was looking for quickly with only a few annoyances.  Yes there are things that can be improved and I am sure in time they will be.  To be fair to the CQC – love them or hate them, no matter what time or money they spent on refurbishing the website I feel they have taken on board feedback and what they have done is a definite improvement. For me it does show they are listening and albeit slow, progress is being made.

Yes you cannot grade a home and 5 ticks seems a bit lame as information to give to someone making a decision on where to place a loved one, and there is still no real quality differential but ignore the politics of the CQC for a moment and I think you will have to say that all in all they have done a good job in relatively short period of time, in a time where the sector has seen the most turmoil for decades.

You will note I have only used the care home sector as my guinea pig but as always I appreciate any feedback or your own comments and experiences with the new CQC website.   After all, every day is a school day…

Night all  @tonyupward

Today CQC publishes the findings following an inspection of services provided at Winterbourne View. After considering a range of evidence inspectors conclude that the registered provider, Castlebeck Care (Teesdale) Ltd, had failed to ensure that people living at Winterbourne View were adequately protected from risk, including the risks of unsafe practices by its own staff.
The report concludes that therwas a systemic failure to protect people or to investigate allegations of abuse. The provider had failed in its legal duty to notify the Care Quality Commission of serious incidents including injuries to patients or occasions when they had gone missing.
Inspectors said that staff did not appear to understand the needs of the people in their care, adults with learning disabilities, complex needs and challenging behaviour. People who had no background in care services had been recruited, references were not always checked and staff were not trained or supervised properly. Some staff were too ready to use methods of restraint without considering alternatives.
The review began immediately after CQC was informed that the BBC television programme Panorama had gathered evidence over several months including secret filming to show serious abuse of patients at the centre.
Inspectors who visited Winterbourne View considered taking urgent action to close the centre, but decided that it was in the best interests of the patients to allow NHS and local authority commissioners further time to find alternative placements.
CQC ensured that there would be an immediate stop on admissions and that extra staff would be brought in to protect patients until they could be moved.
When they were satisfied that those arrangements were in place, CQC took enforcement action to remove the registration of Winterbourne View, the legal process to close a location. The hospital closed in June.
The report which is published today finds that Castlebeck Care Ltd (Teesdale) was not compliant with 10 of the essential standards which the law requires providers must meet. CQC’s findings can be found below.
• The managers did not ensure that major incidents were reported to the Care Quality Commission as required.
• Planning and delivery of care did not meet people’s individual needs.
• They did not have robust systems to assess and monitor the quality of services.
• They did not identify, and manage, risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of patients.
• They had not responded to or considered complaints and views of people about the service.
• Investigations into the conduct of staff were not robust and had not safeguarded people.
• They did not take reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it before it occurred.
• They did not respond appropriately to allegations of abuse.
• They did not have arrangements in place to protect the people against unlawful or excessive use of restraint.
• They did not operate effective recruitment procedures or take appropriate steps in relation to persons who were not fit to work in care settings.
• They failed in their responsibilities to provide appropriate training and supervision to staff.
Amanda Sherlock, CQC’s Director of Operations said: “This report is a damning indictment of the regime at Winterbourne View and its systemic failings to protect the vulnerable people in its care.
“It is now clear that the problems at Winterbourne View were far worse than were initially indicated by the whistleblower. He has stated that he was not aware of the level of abuse until he saw the footage from the secret filming.
“We now know that the provider had effectively misled us by not keeping us informed about incidents as required by the law. Had we been told about all these things, we could have taken action earlier. We will now consider whether it would be appropriate to take further legal action.
“CQC has already acknowledged that we would have acted earlier if the evidence from the television report had been made available to us.
“However it is incorrect that CQC had failed to act on warnings by the whistleblower. Our internal investigation has confirmed that while we were aware of those concerns, our inspector believed they were being dealt with through the local safeguarding process involving a number of agencies. We should have contacted the whistleblower directly – and this will be one of the issues which will be addressed by the independently-led serious case review.
“Immediately we were aware of the extent of the problem, we took the action which is detailed in this report. Although Winterbourne View is now closed, we will continue to monitor Castlebeck’s other services closely.
“The most important outcome of all this is that the people who had been living at Winterbourne View are no longer subject to this culture of abuse.
”Our plans for a programme of random, unannounced inspections of hospitals providing care for people with learning disabilities are well underway and we will report back in due course.”
Over the last four months CQC has reviewed and inspected all the services provided by Castlebeck Care (Teesdale) Ltd at its 24 locations. We will publish the results of this review, including reports on all locations, at the end of July. Where we have identified concerns, measures are in place to address the problems and to ensure the safety of people using services.
Ends

HSE warns those who have social care responsibilities of  - ensure you have thermostatic mixing values fitted.  Nursing and residential care homes take note! CQC ‘Safeguarding’ Outcomes – this is expected of you.

A Birmingham-based social landlord has been fined £100,000 after a man was severely scalded in a bath at a hostel, and later died in hospital from his injuries.
Judge William Davis QC, the Recorder of Birmingham, said there had been significant shortcomings, which would have justified a fine of £300,000 if the organisation, Midland Heart, had been profit-making.

Birmingham Crown Court was told on 5 October that Anthony Ironmonger, 75, died after suffering burns in a bath at the city’s Summer Hill House hostel. On 6 December 2007, Mr Ironmonger had gone into the communal bath area, locked the door and run the hot tap, the water from which was at a temperature of between 60 and 65^OC. He sustained burns to 40 per cent of his total body surface area and had scalds down his back, shoulders, buttocks, upper thighs and both feet. He died in hospital on 17 December from multi-organ failure, complicated by his injuries.

Mr Ironmonger was the second person to have been scalded in a bath at a property operated by Midland Heart. Kevin Clarke, aged 43 at the time, sustained burns at the Snow Hill hostel on 24 August 2008, but was discharged from hospital after treatment.

Midland Heart, the largest housing group in the Midlands, admitted two breaches of s3(1) of the HSWA 1974 for failing to ensure the water-outlet temperature had been properly controlled to avoid scalding, in a prosecution brought by Birmingham City Council.

The housing association was fined £80,000 in relation to the case of Mr Ironmonger and £20,000 in relation to Mr Clarke. It was also ordered to pay £35,000 agreed costs.

In mitigation, Midland Heart said it accepted its failings and sincerely apologised to the families of Mr Ironmonger and Mr Clarke. It said it had spent a considerable amount of money to remedy the defects in its hostels to minimise the risk of scalding accidents, and had installed thermostatic mixer valves on the baths in its housing stock.

Councillor Neil Eustace, chair of the public protection committee at Birmingham Council, commented: “These incidents were completely avoidable and we want to ensure this doesn’t happen again by working with all residential homes and hostels to make sure they have a thermostatic-control system in place.” For health and safety checks contact STORM Consultancy 0845 894 6342 or www.stormconsultancyuk.com

‘ASBESTOS’, even the word alone strikes fear into the majority of people.  Shrouded in mystery and myth, little is commonly known about this ubiquitous building material that surrounds our families, our children at school and even our colleagues at work. It is everywhere.  Yet this little 9 letter word is responsible for 4500 deaths per year. Sadly, death is agonizing and slow and proudly holds the mantel as being biggest UK industrial killer.  Alarmingly, it is predicted to get worse and that by 2015 this silent reaper will cut short the lives of 5500+ per year.   So what makes this mysterious material so lethal and why can’t we stop the march of this hungry assassin?

In this article Jonathan Cunningham MBE from STORM Consultancy attempts to demystify and has recently joined the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) initiative to pledge hundreds of free training hours to local tradesmen.

Mention the word ‘asbestos’ and three things spring to mind, ‘garages roofs’, ‘dangerous’ and ‘expensive’!  Everyone has heard about it but sadly few are genuinely knowledgeable leaving the doorway open for the unscrupulous to exploit the ignorant.

It is a naturally occurring fibrous mineral mined across the world.  Largest produces include South Africa, Russia and Canada.  It has been used by man since civilization began and was even known as the ancient jewel in 4000 bc. It was first used as wicks in lamps and even used to embalm the bodies of Egyptian Pharaohs!  Over the years Britain has imported 6 million tones since the late 1800s and has used it in just about every item you could imagine; even underwear and cigarettes!

But how have we been seduced by asbestos?  The physical properties of asbestos are northing less than outstanding.  A single fibre is 100 times stronger than a fibre of steel, it resists fire, it has fabulous sound proofing qualities, it is the best electrical insulator known and it is resistant to the ravages of weather and chemicals. This versatility meant that it has been used in just about every building, textile and composite known.  As a nation our love for asbestos peaked in the 1950s and 60s, even Marvel Comics brought out Asbestos Man to rid the world of all evils. We used it everywhere; ships, trains and boilers are even lined with it. We have fire proofed buildings with it, we have used it for tiling, flooring, roofs, pipe lagging even toilets are made of the stuff. It is in schools, factories, houses, cinemas, even your common pub loo is full of it. To the unknowing it is only on next door’s garage roof; to the informed it is everywhere! But since the 70s our love affair for asbestos has turned into a prolonged an acrimonious divorce as the dangers of this silent mistress have become apparent.

There are 3 main types of asbestos, white, brown and blue.  White asbestos is what covers your garage roof, ‘Brown’ is ideal fire insulation and commonly found in converted houses, schools and factories. But ‘Blue’ is the worst type, as it has tiny super straight fibres that are more easily inhaled and puncture your lung lining. They are so small 2 million fibres could sit on the end of a sewing needle!

The health effects are well advertised but little understood.  The problem is that once these fibres penetrate your lungs they are unable to be released so remain trapped forever causing more damage.  Common effects include asbestosis (a sever form of asthma), Plaural Plaque (thickening of the lungs lining) and mesothelioma (asbestos related lungs cancer). To date the youngest person to die has been Leigh Carlisle (28) from Manchester who died in 2008 from mesothelioma.  Typically symptoms show themselves between 10 – 40 years after exposure. Sadly only now those who breathed in the toxic dust following the collapse of the Twin Towers some are showing shadowing on their lungs.  The real death toll from that terrible day will be must higher!

So why are people still dying?  Well, it was only until 1999 that all asbestos was finally banned in the UK.  This means that only houses built after 2001 are positively asbestos free.  That will come as a shocking surprise to many.  However, the real cause is the long latency period before this horrendous disease becomes evident.  Everyday tradesmen and women are unknowingly exposed to these lethal asbestos fibres as they cut, saw and tamper with this material.  Plumbers, electricians, painters, shop refitters, carpenters, those involved in IT and demolition are all hazardous risk employment sectors.  Sadly, complacency is everywhere and lack of awareness and shear ignorance is the main cause of death for many.  Question how many nursing homes have an asbestos survey? If they haven’t they are breaking the law and putting residents and staff at risk.    Most importantly there is no exposure safe limit; all exposure is hazardous and should be avoided at all costs.

So what should you do to fight off the Reaper?

• Manage your asbestos in your building; ensure you know where it is.  Commission an asbestos management survey.

• Protect your contractors.  If you are refurbishing or demolishing a building then commission a pre-demolition and refurbishment asbestos survey.

• If your staff interfere work on buildings (e.g. caretakers or trades) then ensure they are asbestos aware trained.

Southport based STORM Consultancy is one of the few UK companies that are playing its part in a Britain wide drive to help tradesmen protect themselves from asbestos.

STORM Consultancy has accepted the invitation from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) by pledging 200 free training hours to help reach a target of 4500 a number which reflects the approximate number of deaths each year from asbestos related diseases.

The free asbestos awareness training will be available throughout October and November and is aimed at tradesmen who are most likely to disturb the fibres as they go about their work, around 20 a week lose their lives to asbestos-related diseases.

STORM is offering a discounted rate for all asbestos surveys booked over October and November.  [Quote Grim Reaper]

STORM Consultancy will be delivering FREE asbestos awareness training on Thursday 13^th October on Merseyside.  If you would like to book a place or places for your staff then phone STORM Consultancy on 0845 894 6342 or visit info@stormconsultancyuk.com

Don’t let the grim reaper win…phone STORM to book your FREE place.