Seminar Arlington 2009

National Fire Safety Working Group. This group will meet soon to progress this with Chief Fire officers.
Members are asked to e-mail fire safety issues to the Group. Details of contact are on the website.

Mathew Hamar, Health and Safety Executive– Health and Social Care.
Matthew gave update on recent consultation exercises, regulatory matters and guidance and the work that is ongoing with Local Authorities with regard to direct payments and the following issues:

• Bedrails;
• Legionella;
• HSG220 – revising and amending.  NASHiCS are supporting and assisting in this;
• Interactive CD aimed at Care Homes being developed;
• PUWER / LOLER – less information sheets available, but there will be more in the future with specific guidance;
• RIDDOR – revised guidance;
• Electronic profiling beds –final report in preparation now;
• Needlesticks – looking at new technology compared to existing systems;
• Floors in healthcare – there is a misconception that safety flooring may reduce cleanliness.  This is a myth as both can happen – safety flooring can be hygienic;
• Competent advice – Legionella, Asbestos. Specialist case about bad / poor advice – Company prosecuted due to inadequate surveys etc. Outside agencies are expected to provide competent advice;
• Stress Case studies – HSE invited NASHiCS to participate in this exercise.

Current Challenges –
• the manual handling passport scheme is working well in Wales and has had a positive effect and work is ongoing to mirror this work in England;
• Working on links to other agencies with respect to the Personalisation agenda and direct payments;
• to carry out more inspections.
During the break for an excellent light lunch provided by the staff of the Arlington Centre delegates attended a demonstration of Fire Safety Training held in the Car Park of the centre.

 

 

 

 

 

The afternoon session comprised of Workshops which delegates could choose to attend. Two questions were posed for consideration. They were:-
‘What risk do organisations have in relation to allocating budgets and where does the responsibility lie?’
‘What are the risks to the budget holders and the carers they employ?’
These are some of the questions and answers posed.
Final Budget holders…
Individual – Is the ‘person’ you are going to employ.
Suitable – training of the employee – family member – friend.  (do they need training)
Manual handling – adequate training – what is realistic?
Does the initial assessment include an element of what training is required?

Freedom to choose and manage risks?
LA’s monitor
outcomes without restricting choice?  Can/should LA’s provide guidance and advice?
How far does the assessment go to determine the precise needs of the person?
Brokers – roles and responsibilities – support agencies.
Agencies – providing carers
Value for money – inappropriate use of funds

If a person is deemed to be unsuitable to be the carer – who will be responsible for dismissal and future insurance claims?
‘Below standard’ care – Who monitors?

Who will be responsible for an injury to the final budget holder?
What about an injury to the employee?
Capacity – how well will decisions be made?
Abuse – how is this managed?
Carer causes injury? What will local authorities do about this?
Are there additional costs specifically for insurance?

S.51 exclusion. Domestic servants fall outside of the HSAWA. When will the HSE become the enforcing authority or will the law be changed?

What will the framework look like to provide direct payments and who will monitor how it is spent?
How will learning points regarding risks/ experiences be cascaded and communicated (up and down)?
Who is the duty holder? And how do they know they are?

How does the self assessor know what questions to ask in assessing their needs?