Aras Attracta heavily criticised in new HIQA inspection report
Published 01/04/2015 | 11:28
The residential home for people with an intellectual disability, Aras Attracta, has been strongly criticised in a new inspection report.
The centre in Swinford Mayo, the centre of a television exposé in early December, was re-visited by the Health Information and Quality Authority in mid-January.
The inspectors found that, while stricter measures were in place to protect residents from abuse, they were not activated in all areas of the centre - and some residents’ privacy and dignity was not supported within the facility.
While procedures were in place to protect residents from being harmed or suffering abuse, the inspection revealed they had not been consistently implemented in all areas of the centre.
This included the risk of unauthorised access to living areas, staff not implementing agreed positive behaviour support arrangements and issues relating to the use of medication to manage behaviour
According to the report, staffing arrangements were not adequate to meet the needs of residents at times. There were also limited opportunities for some residents to participate in social activities.
The inspectors also found that some residents’ communication requirements had not been adequately met, such as inconsistent assessment of communication support needs and a lack of access to a telephone.
Inspectors also identified significant improvements required to risk management, fire safety and infection control measures - and unsafe medication practices were also uncovered.
Some areas of the physical environment had not been maintained in a clean and hygienic condition, according to the recent report.
In centre 2 of the facility, some residents were smoking unsupervised and inspectors saw one resident falling on a wet floor. One staff member was also found to continually approach a resident, despite being asked by another staff member to allow the resident space.
The number of residents that had been identified in each bungalow did not reflect the actual number of residents that were living in one of these bungalows. Aside from their bedrooms, there was nowhere in the bungalow for residents with challenging behaviour to spend time in a quiet environment.