Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
FORCE FEEDING. DRAGGING vulnerable people along the floor. Shouting. Poking and prodding.
The RTÉ Investigations Unit’s Inside Bungalow 3 report last night into the treatment of people with intellectual disabilities at a Mayo care home made for disturbing viewing.
Bungalow 3 is located in Áras Attracta, a residential home in Swinford, Co Mayo. After whisteblowers told RTÉ that the standards of care were not up to scratch there, its Investigations Unit secretly filmed inside to see if this was the case.
What it discovered was shocking.
In 2013, HIQA began inspecting all residential disability services, to ensure they comply with new standards of care.
RTÉ Investigations Unit analysed the 420 inspection reports and found that less than 2% of services were fully compliant with the new standards.
Áras Attracta was among the 98%. A HIQA report found that some of its residents were underweight and went for up to 15 hours throughout the night without food.
A follow-up inspection noted a “significant improvement”, with the HSE assuring families “that management and staff will continue to work… to provide the highest standards of care in the unit”.
3,700 people live in residential services in Ireland, and the programme acknowledges it can be a “difficult and stressful environment to work in”.
After whistleblowers contacted RTÉ Investigations Unit about Áras Attracta, it sent a researcher to do work experience there. She secretly filmed her time there over three weeks.
During the time of filming in Bungalow Three, the daily roster was two nurses and two or three care assistants, responsible for the seven residents.
First, the researcher worked in Bungalow 4, where initially she saw staff members providing “quality care.”
Then she moved to Bungalow 3, which accommodates seven female residents. There were moments “when staff members provided quality care”. But within a short period of time in Bungalow 3, “we learned about another side of care in this unit”.
The programme introduced us to some of the residents, as well as experts who gave their opinion on the secret footage.
One of the residents, Ivy McGinty, is 53, autistic, and with a severe intellectual disability. She cannot speak, but can understand what is being said to her.
Ivy sometimes presents with behaviour that challenges, and when she is frustrated she can hit out at staff. One staff member is on extended sick leave after allegedly being assaulted by Ivy.
Her world is largely centred around two chairs in the bungalow. Over the three weeks of filming, Ivy was largely confined to these two chairs, which “flies in the face of good practice”.
Sometimes, staff rattled keys in front of her to get her to comply. But Ivy is frightened of keys as they have a negative association for her.
Professor Owen Barr, head of the School of Nursing at the University of Ulster, says:
The interaction is very much characterised by raised voices by staff standing up, by staff leaning over CUT by issuing what appears to be threats about what’s going to happen if they don’t behave. That can be very distressing for the individual who lives there. It will also in many many occasions result in an escalation in the behaviour.
At one stage, the programme shows how Ivy’s favourite armchair is taken from her, resulting in her hitting herself and lying on the floor.
“This treatment was a clear breach of the Health Act regulations. These require Aras Attracta to ensure each resident exercises ‘choice and control’ in their daily life,” explains the programme.
Prof Barr says that Ivy’s behaviour “was indicating increasing distress and increasing upset”.
More footage shows Ivy shouting, and a staff member telling her:
What is your problem now stop it. Now put that down if you want to put that down, just stop this tomfoolery, there’s no need for it… look at outside it’s pissing rain, you should be damn glad you have a roof over your head.
At another stage, the staff members are having a meeting at 4.30pm.
Ivy gets up from her chair. One staff member seems to push Ivy’s body into her chair, and points a finger in her face. She says: “You’ve got two choices: 1, stay in your chair; 2 bring up your PJs and go to bed”.
Later on in the evening, when another resident is sitting in Ivy’s chair in the room, a nurse says: “Watch this watch this, I love this.” She then encourages the other resident to “tell her to f*** off… tell her f*** back to her own chair”.
Sat on by the unit manager
At one stage, the manager of the unit, a male nurse, arrives into the bungalow. “Ivy does not like men and staff know it,” says the voiceover.
Ivy is chased back into the room by the male manager who sits on top of her. She tries to push him away.
He eventually gets off her. Ivy is told to apologise to the male manager.
On another occasion, when Ivy tries to move around and get out of her chair, a nurse handles her by the face. She then says “you’re wet, I know you are, but you can stay in it”.
On one evening, when Ivy presents with challenging behaviour, a staff member is seen grabbing her by her hoodie, pulling her from the chair to the floor and dragging her on the floor.
Professor Gerard Quinn, Director at the Centre for Disability Law and Police in NUIG Galway, describes it as “this deeply embedded idea that people with intellectual disabilities really are objects to be managed rather than human beings to be cherished. I find it bizarre.”
When Ivy communicates by pulling at her clothes to indicate that she wants to go to the toilet, one care assistant says:
If you died I won’t bring you the toilet, I haven’t a notion
Ivy goes to other staff, who are told to refuse her. Ivy then goes to the staff member, holding gloves. “You won’t go because you were bold,” she is told.
One staff member lifts up the folder she is holding and attempts to strike Ivy with it.
“This is atrocious behaviour. It is institutionalised in its worst form,” says Prof Barr.
Mary, 65, is from Co Mayo. Her sister Sheila Ryan explains that Mary can’t communicate, but is “a very, very gentle person”, who “knows what’s going on all around even if she can’t communicate”.
She has been living in Áras Attracta for 20 years and spends a lot of time on a particular couch in front of the TV. She communicates using sounds and hand signals.
The secret footage shows a staff member telling Mary she will “go in the porch”, which is isolated and smoky.
After Mary, who has brittle bones and arthritis, continues to make noises, staff “handle her roughly”. One staff member shouts: “One more word!” at her. Mary’s care plan says that she enjoys having her hand held or her hair stroked – which helps soothe her when she’s anxious.” This did not happen on this occasion.
Footage shows a care assistant using her mobile phone before moving Mary to an adjoining room. “Are you going to do that again? Put your head down,” says one staff member.
They move Mary – who can be heard from the next room calling – and then return to the room to chat.
“She’s clearly using her calling out to get attention, she’s clearly using it to try and communicate something. There’s no attempt by staff to establish what that is,” says Prof Barr. “That’s all very very intimidating behaviour. This is the individual’s house. This is where they live.”
Deirdre Corby of the School of Nursing says that it is Mary’s home, and “it should be her voice that is the most important one in the room”.
Mary’s care plan says she likes to go out for walks in the sunshine. The researcher witnessed Mary leaving the bungalow once during three weeks of filming.
Mary is also seen being slapped on the forehead with a piece of folded paper at one stage.
Prof Quinn: “I’ve seen footage like this before, but to be frank, it’s from Eastern Europe, it’s not from Ireland and I feel ashamed about this.”
Mary (75), who is unable to speak and has a severe intellectual disability, has spent her entire life in care.
During the filming, some moments of warmth were seen being shown towards Mary.
But the secret footage also showed a day where Mary was in the same room for nearly 11 hours. Mary’s care plan states that she should have one-to-one interaction and a structured day of activities.
Mary was unwell and needed regular food and drink. Footage shows a care assistant pinning Mary’s right arm back while forcing her to take a drink of milk.
At one stage, she places her hand over Mary’s eyes while making her drink.
Prof Owen Barr says that to him “is abuse of practise”, while Prof Gerard Quinn says it is “bad practise as well as raising very profound concerns over the human rights of the people who live in this institution”.
It was later discovered by the researcher that Mary can feed herself, with assistance.
The footage also shows a staff member saying “shut up” when Mary shouts.
Further footage shows one night when Mary has been in the one spot for nearly 10 hours, having had very little interaction from staff. When Mary falls as she attempts to sit up into the chair, a nurse laughs and says it is her own fault.
She then says: “And as for you – what’s wrong with you?” and roughly plops her in the chair.
Deirdre Corby says that Mary “should feel that she can reach out and communicate if she wants to”, while Prof Barr says “striking an individual with intellectual disabilities, indeed striking anyone, is assault and in those circumstances entirely unwarranted” .
Further footage shows Mary being pushed to the ground, a staff member picking up Mary and throwing her into an armchair. Mary’s hand is also slapped.
Sheila Ryan, Mary’s sister, says she was “shocked beyond words” after seeing the footage of what happened to her.
I’ve never seen anything like it ever in all my life. That they seem to think that she’s an object – that she doesn’t feel anything that she doesn’t understanding anything, but she does. Every human being does, Mary’s no different. I know its difficult work but there’s a line you do not cross – where you infringe on someone’s human dignity and you’re depending on people not to cross that line.
Sheila says she is “so proud” of her sister for not retaliating in the face of her treatment.
Breege Dolan, Ivy’s sister, says:
All the family are very hurt over this. Ivy can’t tell us exactly how she feels. It’s very hurtful to watch somebody do that to your own flesh and blood – they’re innocent people doing no harm to no one. Going into a place where they thought they’d be well looked after.
Of the incident where Ivy says she wants to be brought to the toilet, but is refused. Breege says: “She got the gloves and they still would not bring Ivy to the toilet. Now that’s very, very hurtful for, you know, a girl that can’t speak.”
“I will not rest until this is properly investigated,” says Mary’s sister Sheila. “The least we might expect [is] that people who are in care are treated with dignity and respect.
Says Breege Dolan: “I always thought Ivy being in Áras Attracta was a wonderful place and we were happy for her. I don’t know who to trust now, really and truly.”
Under the Health Act regulations, Aras Attracta is required to protect residents from abuse. One recorded incident shows that it failed to do so.
A care assistant searches for her keys, which Ivy is fearful of. She waves the keys in front of Ivy’s face, and then strikes Ivy with them across the leg.
The footage also shows the care assistant kicking Ivy, slapping and manhandling her.
“That’s very, very difficult to watch, and very, very poor quality care,” says Prof Barr.
Professor Ruth Northway, Professor of Learning Disability Nursing, University of South Wales, describes it as “clearly abuse”.
Prof Quinn says:
It’s as if the person’s being treated as invisible, as a non-person and when she tries to become visible is pushed back.
Later in the evening, the care assistant is showing confining and pinching Ivy. The next day, the nurse is caring for Ivy when she blocks Ivy’s path and Ivy drops herself to the ground. She reprimands her, telling her she is “chancing your arm” and “being very silly”.
Ivy remains on the floor for two minutes before the nurse challenges her again. Staff then discuss whether Ivy “deserves a chair”. The staff member shouts”pick a chair, any chair, that one?” When Ivy gets up off the floor and picks one, the staff member says “right, well you don’t get off it”.
Throughout the rest of the day, footage shows Ivy being slapped on numerous occasions by various staff members for attempting to get out of her chair.
The secret footage does show a staff member speaking out about practices at one stage.
When one care assistant issues a “mild threat”, another staff member says: “Oh you don’t say that to her, don’t say that to her”.
After three weeks of filming, the researcher was taken out of Aras Attracta. RTÉ reported the situation to the HSE, HIQA and An Garda Siochána, who are now carrying out a formal investigation.
Pat Healy, National Director for Social Care with the HSE, told Prime Time he was “disturbed” by what he saw in the programme.
Here’s what Minister Kathleen Lynch had to say about the matter.
RTÉ Investiations Unit: Inside Bungalow 3 is available for viewing on RTÉ Player.
All images RTÉ Investigations Unit
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Common sense has prevailed. This referenda was organised by the radical left in Switzerland. Where a referendum can be called with petition of 20,000 signatures.
Thank God the radical left haven’t got much of a foothold in this country. Dogmatic bunch of anti-capitalist wasters.
Oh, and watch now as the more talented executives cross the border and head for greener pastures once they’ve hit the pay cap.
“Having developed this marvellous entrepreneurial culture which is delivering so many benefits in terms of employment and wealth to the country we must ask ourselves if there is now a danger that our regulatory environment has gone too far? We should be proud of our success, not suspicious of it. Our wealth creators should be rewarded and admired not subjected to levels of scrutiny which convicted criminals would rightly find intrusive.”
Sean Fitzpatrick. Anglo Irish Bank. June 2007.
Well said Sean fitz it applies now more than ever
Good result. The swiss aren’t fools. The overused word “empowered” certainly applies to the Swiss.
Funny the Journal massaged the story for weeks and weeks and now the results are out we get a reprint of the AFP story.
Thanks for the feedback, Dom. Not quite sure what you’re getting at, but we only had one other article directly dealing with this referendum http://www.thejournal.ie/switzerland-vote-executive-pay-1174184-Nov2013/
This is not correct. There was another article on Switzerland quietly becoming a rebel of Europe where 1:12 initiative was the main theme. And then there were a few articles on basic guaranteed income initiative also the be voted on in Switzerland where 1:12 was also referenced.
The point is that the Journal is happy to elaborate on nonsensical socialist schemes but then when such suicidal ideas get comprehensively defeated we get a copy-paste of an AFP article.
Idiots, why would anyone bar the top 10% of earners vote no to this. “It will ruin the economy”, horseshit! It will ruin our 700k plus salaries. Greed!
Larry
I’m giving you the bird for that comment. If I own my own Company and own all of the assets and decide to employ one hundred people on twice the minimum wage could you please tell me why you think that I cannot pay myself anything I want to from profits. Firstly what business is it of yours and secondly if the Swiss had voted yes then I would simply have laid off all the employees and closed the business.
What kind of idiot are you Larry?
tell that to the toilet cleaner who works 60 hours a week, brings home 1000 euro a month while the top execs are bringing home his monthly salary in a day for all “their hard work”. if you own the company you can have any form of bik’s you want idiot.
so the owner of a company who took all the risk sinking all he has into it, and prob work 80 hr weeks for years making next to nothing, and against all odds created a successful company should be paid just a little more than someone who cleans toiles?
The cleaner get more than they are worth in most cases I find
Owners should take a good whack for the reasons you’ve outlined and fair play to them. However too many top brass executives are not as you described; especially in the banking sector.
Disgraceful. There’s a reason why only teenage guys and far left loons support socialism. It does not work.
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.
That’s not socialism , that sounds like a communistic dictatorship! In socialism people are allowed a fair wage for work, and are afforded the same opportunities . Look at America, where wal Mart was recently running a food drive for its OWN paid employees in some stores! That is where unchecked capitalism goes- maximum work for minimum pay!
First of all that a made up story with a false moral…it’s a fairy tale, never happened.
Second the idea that greater the reward means greater the effort is proven false for monetary rewards. In fact it’s proven that after a certain point the greater the financial incentive the worse the return, especially for innovative tasks.
pity :(
A terrible pity.
Sense prevails
It’s hard to believe that some people support an ethos that ensures the rich and powerful can manipulate the system to get richer and more powerful. I don’t necessarily agree with this 1:12 idea as it could potentially raise other difficulties but the responses from some people on here are difficult to understand.
- Poor people are all scroungers
- Wealthy people are heavily taxed (average income tax rate in Ireland is <35%)
- It's ok for someone to want to earn more and more money even if they have no need for it. Greed is NOT good so long as there are others going without.
Rich people are NOT wealth creators, they play a small part in a labour market. Some people come up with ideas, some people are good at management and most are willing to sell their labour and know-how for a price. The people in power (executives, bankers etcetera) manipulate the system to ensure that they are rewarded disproportionately for the work that they do. This greed is the cause of most poverty, all environmental issues and most of the wars around the globe. This is a fact that needs to be addressed.
So basically Switzerland voted against a reasonable fair society and want the rich to become as rich as they like and anyone dirt poor can just have more dirt…There must be f**k all working class people in the country worth talking about anyway for it to pass by such a margin. Or maybe the dopes were too lazy watching judge Judy on telly to go out and vote..
It’s not as simple as that Allister.
Voting yes to this could (or more likely would) have resulted in a lot of effects that were unintended.
Like most pseudo-socialists, you don’t actually know much about what you’re talking about.
1. Capping the wage would leave Switzerland less competitive. Larger companies would decide against setting up shop. Talented executives would hop over the border or simply choose another EU country that doesn’t have such a cap.
2. Social inequality isn’t a big problem in Switzerland. This was proposed by a bunch of socialists who care more about pushing their dogma on people than improving the country.
3. The proposal left loopholes. Executives could still get their wealth through equity.
4. Switzerland is a free society, the last time I heard. Why take away that just so a bunch of anti-establishment loons who grow dreads and partake in drum circles can be happy.
You don’t know much about economics and business, do you
Exactly right Johnny five. But don’t worry, the culture of “I want what HE HAS” culture in Ireland is still alive and well. You can be successful but not too successful, (because that wouldnt be FAIR)
It’s nearly laughable at this stage.
-You don’t know much about economics and business, do you-
Neither does anyone else judging by what they did to it
The excuse of “the highly paid will leave and they will lose competitiveness” is ridiculous. Just because your neighbours have an unfair society doesn’t mean you should too. These changes have to start somewhere. If everyone pushed to live in a fairer country there wouldn’t be the problem of the rich leaving and losing competitiveness. It’s a well known fact that inequality leads to social problems.
Quite staggering ignorance of the Swiss and their country. Absolutely staggering.
They actually work to become rich and the likes of you looking for more handouts has this country in the state it’s in.
Who here is looking for handouts?
High earners are already taxed extremely highly in this country. I’m sick of hearing poor people give out about the so called rich as they fleece the taxpayer for their housing,dole,medical cards and an incredibly long number of other benefits. Those that work hard and have ability deserve less tax and social welfare should be cut to facilitate this.
I think you have misunderstood the topic here. There’s nobody talking about social welfare, medical cards, taxes, etc. This article is about income inequality for working people.
Sean what is unfair if getting what you deserve in life, it’s perfectly fair to me
So you think that if you are able to make money then you deserve it? So where do you draw the line then for bank robbery, drug dealing, or fraud? Is that all deserved?
And I don’t believe it’s very easy to be very rich without living off the backs of others. Try to list a few people who are super-rich who haven’t in some way damaged the environment or used workers in 3rd world countries for example.
I wonder is paying ridiculously high salaries a method for a company to reduce its profits for taxation purposes. An avoidance method for corporation tax and the excessive pay by the employee can be put into a private pension scheme with little or no tax. A screw the state at all opportunities type mentality.
Mark. That is like asking why do premiers football players get the wages they do. Its because that is what clubs are willing to pay to get the very best. Companies are no different. So why should they be dictated to has to how much their senior executives get paid.
I hear your point, and I cannot fathom how spectators/fans agree to support such wages with their hard earned cash. It’s an issue of personal pleasure and quality of service provided with regard the sports industry sector and each to their own on that front. However when companies which hold a monopoly on services that both the state and private sector must utilise decide to increase the wages offered to the top executives it ultimately increases inflation within the economy as the company passes on the cost to the consumer. This transfers wealth at an alarming rate to the elite in these positions. I’m sure these professionals are extremely effective operators however I think there should be some control over these salaries so as to protect the state from inflation.
@mick jordan. The fact that premier clubs fork out so much for players has nothing to do with signing the very best. The very best come through the Spanish cantera system and seldom end up in the premier league. Secondly, two wrongs don’t make a right, so wouldn’t it be better to cap sports salaries to a fixed percentage of a clubs income instead of paying totally non productive entertainers outlandish salaries. Thirdly, the success of every executive is dependant on the labour of all em
Employees. Therefore is it not rational to suggest the success of executives is inherently dependent on the labour of all employees and the salary therefore should be a fair reflection thereof.
Mark what’s the difference between income tax rates and corporate tax rates- serious you need to educate yourself
It’s interesting that capping the salaries of senior executives would make Switzerland “less competitive ….. and scare off foreign firms”
while the OECD claims that capping or reducing the salaries of ordinary workers in Ireland has the completely opposite effect.
“Wage restraint will be required in the short run to help maintain competitiveness and crowd in foreign demand.”
http://finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1013801.shtml
More and more wealth is being concentrated in fewer hands.
At this stage societies are reverting away from shared futures in to the old days of them and us, that eventually leads to upheaval.
The rich create jobs:
Yes if they have no other choice, otherwise they prefer hedge funds, bonds and the like.
They work hard for their money:
Actually no, most of them inherited it, some of them improved their inheritance.
They’ll move to another country and take their money with them:
Just how much of their money do you think they have here? Most of it is already off shore.
Mark don’t judge everyone in your low standards, the rich are rich because they deserve to be
So you’re saying that the poor are poor because they deserve to be?
Demand for a service creates jobs
Yes and no, a business from the beginning up to a middle size business provides the vast majority of employment within a country, and is the pillar of an functioning economy. However when a business grows successful beyond a certain point it no longer creates employment, in fact it destroys employment. It does this by out sourcing to poorer countries with cheap labour or by mechanisation. However they continue to hover up capital from an economy at an exponential rate by availing of foreign tax havens and by loop holes deliberated created by corrupt politicians. Moral is Big Business is as damaging as big government when allowed to grow without restriction.
Demand creates demand. Banks decide is a business is funded and allowed to survive. http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/ulster-bank-rbs-small-firms-default-1192097-Nov2013/.
Wealth as an economic reward is rare and unlikely.
I don’t understand why so many people give out about people earning too much, I bet those same people would jump at the chance to have that much money, jealousy!
The less you earn technically the better of you are because when you are earning a lot of money a lot of it goes on taxes and Levy’s , So the more you earn to more you pay. Because the Levy and tax are a percentage of your wage.
Do yourself a favour then Francis and ask for a pay cut this Christmas.
What a moronic comment.
Obviously Francis is working hard to eork for free….
…. please report back on how that goes.
My point is in the current Culture is that The Levis and taxes are screwing peoples wages. I think that People should get a fair wage for a fair days work. I do think its unfair that their is a Hugh gap in Wages between the to and lower paid. As regards asking for a pay hike at Christmas I cant because I am now unemployed.AS I SAID PEOPLE WHO ARE EARNING THE MOST PAY THE MOST TAXES. Even if you do overtime now most of it goes on taxes that is NOT FAIR.. So I was only trying to get a point across .
Pity about the defeat.
However, at least Switzerland has a system which brings democracy much closer to the people.
All we can do here is hang in there for four years at a time before we can have a go at shifting wasters out of office.
The 1:12 Initiative was a very good idea and should not be allowed fade off the political radar in Switzerland.
We sure need something like it here. Apparently our 1922 Constitution had a built in facility whereby if 75000 citizens signed a petition the matter could immediately be brought to Government.
For some reason that provision was removed.
Perhaps it’s time we went looking to have it re-instated. It could be a mechanism through which we might begin to re-balance income in this country and restrain the Banking and Industrial fat cats from constantly gulping up the cream.
have your say