Acton Pool - Ealing see also Ealing Main Page & Ealing Freedom of Information Page
Lifeguarding Cleaning and Other Issues in Quest Report
On 5.9.06, some time after Ealing Council had announced it was ending its contracts with LC, I received a late additional reply to a Freedom of Information request made in November 2005. The document sent was the Quest report on Acton Pool dated December 2005 and based on a mystery visit made in May and announced inspection on December 1 &2 in 2005. While there was an apology no explanation was given for the delay. PB
Again I am concerned not just at the lifeguarding issues noted but the way in which Quest has reported and handled a serious breach of safety .
The Mystery Visitor's report noted: ""We were advised that the pool was quite busy and we were offered the opportunity to visit the pool before purchasing our tickets."
However, this is contradicted by an earlier paragraph which reads. "The Centre was visited once on a Sunday morning during an advertised public swimming session. Both pools were quiet with a few adult and family groups swimming throughout the duration of the visit to the main pool. The small pool appeared to be in use with an organised club activity." So what are we to understand about how busy the pool was, especially as this has some bearing on how many were at risk from the deficient lifeguarding?
Under Health and Safety Management the visitor reports: "There was one lifeguard on the Poolside for the duration of the Visit. The centre was operated generally in a safe manner with good supervision of customers and activities from Lifeguards on duty ... After the first Lifeguard rotation the new Lifeguard initially sat in the chair adjacent to the Pool. After a short while he stood up and started to read the Pool timetable leaflet. During this five minute period the Lifeguard did not supervise the Pool appropriately with only an occasional glance at the Pool."
The report concludes with a summary which noted overall the visit was positive and listed three key strengths. Under Key areas for improvement was listed "Lifeguard Supervision."
Given
this one might expect the formal inspection to focus on lifeguarding and its
supervision but these do not feature directly in the main report. The overall score for "Health and Safety Management"
was 7 out of 10. Quest defines 7 as "Effective in most areas examined, minor omission(s) or satisfactory in one or
two areas
The 7 was derived from 11 sub-headings each rated from 1 ("No you do not do this at all") to 4 ("Yes you do this, and there is nothing or very little which could be improved." Only four items received a 4 rating. Two items were rated "2" (Yes you do this but you have not implemented fully"). These were "Staff are trained to carry out H&S responsibilities" and "Hazardous substances are controlled".
There are a number of notes under these ratings. Strengths relate for the most part to having the right documentation. "Areas for improvement" include H&S refresher sessions for staff, ensure staff are clear about their H&S responsibilities, the need to better manage storage of chemicals, shortage of protective equipment, including review of safe working practices in LC quality management, and have at least two fire drills per year.
Does these things and the unobservant lifeguard add up to a "7" in your book?
"Staff Supervision and Planning" also received 7 out of 10, with 6 sub-headings rated 1 - 4. Only one 4 was given, for complying with legal requirements for shifts." There were two 2s, for "Staff are suitably qualified and trained to perform their duties" and "The shift planning system ensures that adequate time is allocated for meetings, handovers, training and personal development of individuals".
The report notes; "From various conversations with Staff ... it appears that NPLQ (National Pool Lifeguard Qualification) training has not been carried out, the training files also evidenced this. The centre is aware of this and is in the process of addressing the situation." The body responsible for lifeguarding training standards requires that "To maintain the skills and competency of a lifeguard, suitable and sufficient training and competency assessment should be conducted regularly..."
Again I question whether this should add up to a 7. The 7s suggests the public can have a degree of confidence is the safety of the premises and competence of the staff but having studied the full Quest report I would not have felt confident in such circumstances. The tentative language found so often when a Quest report is critical cannot be appropriate when questions of heath and safety are at stake.
The report says it is the fourth and that it had raised the overall score from 62 to 65%. Compared to other centre scores Acton is significantly lower on Cleanliness, Health & Safety and Management Style.
For Cleanliness the rating was 5 out of 10. Of the seven subheadings rated 1 -4 , five were rated 2 and one 1. The only 3 related to cleaning being undertaken safely. One might well ask how a five out of ten was achieved with such a dismal set of sub-scores. Notes included;
 | "It was unclear how standards were monitored" |
| "A timetable for deep and high level cleaning was not in place. The deep cleaning of showers, toilets and urinals throughout is poor" |
The Mystery Visitor seven months before the main inspection had observed "In general the standard of cleanliness within the centre was disappointing" and noted
|
mould and scale was found on the shower walls |
| chewing gum was found on some floors |
| the carpet within the Fitness Studio was not clean |
| ...excessive dust and cobwebs were found on the air vents |
"Maintenance of Buildings, Plant and Equipment" scored 7 out of 10. The sub-heading for "Planned preventative maintenance and inspection programmes are implemented" received a 2 - not fully implemented. It was noted that the management team did "not have a schedule of what the main contractor are going to do and when. Also they receive little or no feedback from the contractor that works have been carried out."
"Changing Rooms" received 5 out of 10. Two sub-heading were rated 1 and three 2. Both the main visit and the mystery visitor had noted "the level of hygiene and cleanliness in the toilets was poor" "Cleaning checks should be happening every two hours, but Staff have indicated that due to Staff shortages his does not happen."
"People Management" scored a 7 despite four of the seven sub-headings being rated "2". The 2's related to deficiencies in identifying training needs, providing training, developing staff further and annual appraisal. The notes show that there were no records on site to identify which staff had been checked by the Criminal Records Bureau.
Management Style was rated 5. Of the 9 subheadings four were 1s and three were 2s. Notes included:
| "All staff interviewed had no idea what the aims or goals for the centre are with the exception of the weekly membership targets" |
| "There was little evidence of Staff involvement and consultation in service development." |
| "There is currently no staff suggestion scheme" |