UNISON responses to legionella issue in Barnet Care Homes
Dear officer
Thanks for the response I have read your responses and I have a number of further questions:
In relation to question 1 I have been told that a day care service user contracted ‘legionnaire’s disease’ and it was this that led to the legionella check in all of the homes. Can you confirm this is the case? Furthermore you mention that “Barnet public health team has undertaken a look-back exercise” why only for eight months and not a full calendar year? In terms of this exercise did they forget or miss out Merrivale for some other reason?
In relation to question 2, I note that in the improvement notice Catalyst you make the following suggestion:
“You should appoint a ‘responsible person’ to take managerial responsibility and provide supervision for the implementation of precautions.”
This is of particular importance since the recent incident at Apthorp Lodge identified that there was a lack of communication between Catalyst, Fremantle, Kier and Musketeer. Due to the complexity of your arrangements at these care homes it is imperative that you identify clear lines of responsibilities and reporting arrangements for each of these parties.”
There four organisations mentioned in the above statement do they not have any health & safety responsibilities to the residents, staff and members of the public?
In relation to question 3 it is now three months since we were alerted by the Director of Adult Social Services to the legionella issue. Can you confirm that all three homes are now clear of any legionella infection?
In relation to question 4, whilst I am glad to hear we are checking for legionella, can you confirm who is paying for these checks and how long will they continue?
In relation to question 6 I assume from the fact you have served an ‘Improvement notice that their previous risk assessments were unsatisfactory?
· When was the last risk assessment taken for each home ?
· What do you mean by elevated levels of legionella?
· What is an acceptable level legionella if as you say ‘Legionella bacteria are ubiquitous’
In relation to question 8, now that I understand the technical application of the term ‘outbreak’ I will endeavour not to use it in this case. If someone had approached me much earlier I would have amended my public reports to my members. At the weekend a member of the public alerted me to a story in Glasgow about what I believe is a legionella outbreak:
“A rise in the number of people with Legionnaires Disease in Glasgow is being investigated.
The NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Public Health Protection Unit are to study the increase in the number of people being diagnosed.
Five people have recently tested positive, including an elderly man with underlying medical conditions who died last week”
As there are a number of investigations going on without the involvement of the trade unions you must understand that this matter is of concern both for our members, residents and members of the public. If my request for a public inquiry had been agreed we may be all been clearer about what went wrong and what mechanisms will be in place to ensure this does not happen again.
I would hope everyone agrees there has been a narrow escape and no one was infected. I am a little worried by your response where you say
“All that has happened at these care homes is that Legionella bacteria have been found in the water supply and routine action has been taken to deal with this.”
As I don’t know if the homes have been given the all clear it does appear that routine action has not been sufficient and suggests there are further problems.
In relation to question 9, I am concerned to read that despite what you describe as comprehensive attempts to deal with the legionella Catalyst are still not able to give an ‘all clear’. It does suggest the problem is more serious than was first indicated in the letter to staff in February.
In relation to question 10 it is clear that this matter is not a routine operation but a more complex situation which is contradictory to your response to question 8.
In relation to question 11, the improvement notice was served on 16 March and Catalyst had to respond by 7 April 2011.
I note that Failure to comply with this Improvement Notice is an offence as provided by Section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and s.33 (2A) of this Act renders the offender liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding £20,000, or both, or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both
Can you confirm that they have complied with the notice and if not what action is going to be taken to ensure they comply.
Best wishes
John Burgess
Branch Secretary.
Standing up for staff and public services
Barnet