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.
A HIQA REPORT has found a Limerick centre for adults with disabilities non-compliant over issues to do with residents’ privacy and restraint procedures.
In a report published yesterday, the healthcare watchdog said that the use of “a high-risk physical restraint” at St Vincent’s Residential Services in Limerick had decreased, but was still approved and continued to present “a risk to residents’ health and safety”.
A review of physical restraint indicated an incremental decrease in high-risk restraint techniques over the previous two years with a particularly high risk technique (prone or face-down restraint) being used once so far this year (once in a seven month period).
“This was a significant decrease from previous years,” the report said.
There were however well-documented difficulties with carrying out a health examination of any individual resident involved following any such episodes with only visual monitoring being possible.
It said that as a result, “despite the safeguards in place, the on-going use of such a high-risk technique coupled with the difficulties examining residents following any such episode remains a cause for concern for Hiqa in terms of residents’ health and safety”.
It added that a previous recommendation of how to use a chemical restraints had not been followed by the centre.
In a previous inspection, the centre was advised to improve its record keeping of the administration of PRN medicine usage (medication only taken as the need arises).
The centre was found to not have adequately documented any adverse effects of the medicines, or the efficacy of the medication.
In addition, improvement was required to ensure that the reasons for administering chemical restraint were recorded clearly and consistently as general terms such as ’agitation’ were being recorded as the rationale.
In another case, the consultant psychiatrist had indicated that the use of the chemical restraint in one particular circumstance was inappropriate, but the practice had not changed.
This was discussed with the person in charge and representative of the provider, who after the inspection arranged for a clinical meeting to take place to review their practices in the centre.
The administration of chemical restraint usage at the centre was reviewed on a weekly basis by a psychiatrist and service-wide oversight was taken by a drugs and therapeutics committee.
The Daughters of Charity-owned centre provides support and accommodation for adults with intellectual disabilities. Currently, the centre has seven residents.
Between two Hiqa inspections of the centre in May and July of this year, a report of an alleged breach of one resident’s human rights, in relation to their right to liberty, had been reported.
In response, a “safeguarding plan” was implemented at the Limerick centre, which included reducing restrictions and support from a speech and language therapist in communicating options and choices to residents.
The inspection report also found that the environment in which patients lived was unacceptable:
The failings identified at previous inspections found that “adequate private accommodation was not provided for all residents”.
The privacy and dignity of four residents was compromised due to the fact that partitions between sleeping areas were taller than head height but did not extend the full height of the room.
There was a gap between the top of the partitions and the ceiling of the room. As a result, bedroom areas were not fully private. Inspectors observed that windows in five bedrooms were above head height with limited natural light. Curtains were also at ceiling height
These had since been solved, the report acknowledged:
The staff team had made further efforts to decorate and personalise the centre with pictures, photographs, soft furnishings and other homely touches. Bedrooms were personalised and some residents chose to show inspectors their rooms, which they said they liked.
It was acknowledged that some positive actions had been taken at the centre. The centre arranged for two external reviews of the service of one part of the centre, and showed that they were implementing recommendations from those reviews.
The Hiqa inspector also found that “the building was not provided with construction capable of containing a fire where required” and that “a funded plan was not yet in place to address the failing that the environment” at the centre which was having an impact on residents.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Plastics are numbered 1-7. It would be more definitive if recycling companies listed the plastic numbers they except. This is never listed on their websites
Don’t know what so hard to understand about filling the green bin. It’s pretty easy. PAPER, PLASTIC, METAL. NO NAPPIES, BATTERIES, OR GARDEN WASTE. How difficult is that to understand.
@Thomas Maher: It’s not all plastics. How difficult is it to read the whole article?
Dirty nappies and politicians .both changed regularly and for the same reason.
Curious about two questions: So I fill my green bin according to the list, but my neighbour throws a couple of batteries into his green bin. Both bins are then tossed into the refuse collection truck. Does this mean that everything else inside the refuse collection truck is contaminated? Also if the used yoghurt container is not washed prior to disposal is it also treated as contaminated?
Ok – I confess my ignorance: What about thin plastic bags or Pringles tubes?
Now think really hard , and ask yourself what are they made from?. If you arrive at the answer paper, plastic or metal. They can go in the…..
@Thomas Maher:
Except that’s not really true though – only certain types of plastics can be recycled. It appears you’re even more ignorant than me.
@Avina Laaf: Pringles tube is, I think, *not* recyclable. That’s what Google says.
(Not an expert, but I think it’s because of the bonded metal and paper layers.)
Thanks Stephen :)
Given that worldwide they probably churn out billions of them annually, Pringles should really work on making a tube that’s recyclable.
@Avina Laaf: Now your talking. Bring back milk in glass bottles and the option to buy things which are not sealed in enough packaging to survive a small nuclear blast. Bananas and oranges wrapped in plastic for example. Last time I checked nature had already wrapped these up.
If in doubt about something, throw it in the ordinary waste bin. I looked on the McKane oven chips bag for recycle symbol, it doesn’t have one, so I throw it in the black bag. Even though most of the other freezer stuff have the recycle symbol.
They should print this list on the side of the bins. Or send out stickers to existing customers to stick on the bin. That might help
How the f**k do I wash my old newspapers?
Last week I observed my binman pick up my food waste bin and empty it into my ordinary rubbish bin before then putting it in the truck. Why do we bother separating our rubbish at all if the binman can’t even be bothered!
Recycling, most people do their best. But lack of understanding what can and can’t be recycled. I know it causes confusion in our house hold. We do had debates on which is and isn’t. Better marketing of tiems you can Recycle.
Just rub them with a baby wipe
Oh my happy nappy, up on the wheely bin, Shall you join your fallen brothers, when gravity kicks in? Or perhaps you’ll be like blanky and lay under refuse sack, Nappy and blanky in worlds unknown destined to never come back, I miss thee happy Nappy and the words of which you’d speak, O Nappy, my Nappy where are you, of you I am in seek.
Wow! Someone is happy chappy this morning. Got your pipe emptied last night yeah!?
I can sort of understand the nappies in the green bin. Not that I condone it but the weight of nappies is something else. If you are being charged by weight on your grey bin and the reasoning is to reduce consumption then it is unfair, as you really have no choice. I know you could say use non disposal one but the up front cost is huge and there isn’t a culture of using them. You could invest and realise their are a nightmare to use thus wasting money at a time you have less. Maybe look at changing that rather than complaining about contaminating green bins. Sometimes you have to ask why are so many people doing it.
@Melissa . Sometimes i have to ask why are so many people like you so idiotic with some of the stuff you come out with. There is no reason to be throwing used nappys into a recycling bin. People who do this are not doing it because they are unaware that it is not recyclable. They are just 100% ignorant.
And that would be a completely rhetorical question.
@Melissa O’Callaghan: I’m trying to figure out why your statement was so unpopular. I used to live in Galway city and I was charged for weight on the black bin only….and it was because of nappies and ashes from the fire that I had to pay more for my bins. I did the right thing but it cost me an extra 100 a year so I’m not surprised what others do.
Steady Paddy, I had three children in nappies and 2 at the same time and NEVER put nappies in the green bin but if I was strapped for cash then I could understand why people would, (empathy) as nappies fill your bin up in no time and weigh a ton. Families are being penalised. Maybe make environmental nappies cheaper.
So thats why panda didn’t pick the bin up. I didn’t wash the newspaper’s.
Anyone with babies, check out the Cloth Nappy Library. There are actually quite a few people using cloth and it isn’t like it used to be when yer ma was hand rinsing terries. The Cloth Nappy Library even have new born and long term loan pack available at a low cost so that you can try them out before you commit to buying. http://www.clothnappylibrary.ie/
I looked into it, 6 years ago. If they are viable why are the mid wives on the pre baby talks promoting environmental options. It’s just the same as breast feeding, it’s culturally declining (paddy, before you react I fed all my kids!) but people need help, reassuring that’s it’s not more work / difficult. Another example of cutbacks in one area having impacts elsewhere and only when you ask why is this behaviour happening that you can change the outcome and not just blame. One the subject of plastics and films. Why are the packagers allowed to use the unrecoverable plastic? Not why are people recycling badly.
You know, I was considering that babies grow out of nappies. But are there not adult ones for incontinence too? Maybe some older people get confused.
How is it that in this entire article, it wasn’t mentioned that almost all packaging that’s recyclable has an internationally recognisable recycling symbol on it? Stranger still, one of the main symbols is shown in an image on the article with no explanation of what it is.
The repak website has the examples on their “For Consumer” section.
Gráinne, the sentences leading up to the list imply that this is a list of things that should NOT go in the green bin. It’s obvious by the nature of the items themselves that they can but can you clarify it in the article please?
What about dirty books?
what about washing powder boxes ?? the symbol is there but someone said they should not be put into the green bin.
Any tips on how to get the bins washed?
have your say