Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

The same care home was found to have a lack of safeguards around residents' finances. Alamy Stock Photo
HIQA inspections

Dublin care centre impacted residents' privacy as a result of unexplained hourly night checks

HIQA inspectors said the checks were found to have no rationale.

RESIDENTS’ PRIVACY RIGHTS were not adequately safeguarded at a Dublin centre for people with disabilities, a report has found.

During inspections of 30 centres by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), 14 were found to have a generally good level of compliance with the regulations and standards, while 16 centres performed poorly.

One of these centres, operated by The Cheshire Foundation in Ireland in the Phoenix Park in Dublin, had institutional practices in place which had affected residents’ rights and privacy.

These practices included unexplained, hourly checks every night on residents, where proper documentation was not presented to include any rationale for them, as well as the use of CCTV cameras, without informing residents they were being recorded, in common areas.

During the inspection at the Cara Cheshire House, near Chapelizod, Dublin 20, doubts over the safeguarding of residents’ finances were also noted in the report.

Inspectors found that the costs associated with taking holiday trips inside Ireland, which was allowed by the home, were not correctly consulted with the residents.

Additionally, there was a lack of transparency regarding the need for residents to fully fund the staff cost, according to the report. The inspectors said that the process required a review by The Cheshire Foundation.

Elsewhere, there were also doubts about the safeguarding of residents’ finances in a centre run by Terra Glen Residential Care Services.

Hazel Park in Co Wexford were told it required “significant improvement” in its financial oversight systems after it was found that much of the residents’ money was managed by a third-party agency.

The money allocated to them through an allowance which the inspectors said made it difficult, or impossible, for the residents to save for products they wanted to purchase. It also made it so the residents’ had to request for more money if they wanted to spend over the given allowance.

Although such an arrangement might be accepted elsewhere, inspectors noted that on the day of the visit, a resident had no control over nor access to their personal finances and the provider had no safeguarding systems of oversight in place – as a result of the system being external to the Terra Glen.

Two centres operated by Sunbeam House Services CLG were found to have poor governance. This had an impact on residents’ rights and living arrangements.

HIQA said improvements are needed in areas including the use of restrictive practices, measures to protect against infection, and residents’ contracts, among other things.

Fire safety was a recurring concern among the inspections, with it being flagged as an issue in four centres. In all cases, HIQA inspectors asked that it be inspected by the provider and later improved.

The inspections were of centres owned by Nua Healthcare Services Limited, Peamount Healthcare, Resilience Healthcare Limited, St John of God Community Services CLG, St Joseph’s Foundation, St Michael’s House, Terra Glen Residential Care Services Limited, and The Rehab Group.

Additional reporting by Mairead Maguire

Your Voice
Readers Comments
9
This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic. Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy here before taking part.
Leave a Comment
    Submit a report
    Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
    Thank you for the feedback
    Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.

    Leave a commentcancel