Lois Bridges anorexia treatment Centre
Inspection of Lois Bridges finds an unacceptable level of cleanliness. Dusty and grimy, and rooms not smelling clean and bathrooms unclean, residents highlight issues in a feedback meeting with Mental Health Commission inspectors. Lois bridges anorexia treatment clinic at 3 Greenfield Road Sutton was inspected by the Mental Health Commission of Ireland: Full report Click here
Non-compliant areas on this inspection
Lois Bridges anorexia treatment Centre was requested to provide Corrective and Preventative Actions (CAPAs) for areas of non-compliance Residents feedback Concern about the level of cleanliness in the bedrooms and shower rooms was commented on.
3.22 Regulation 22: Premises
There was a list of approved contractors posted in the kitchen and there was a record of maintenance work. The policy did not include infection control as applied to the premises, however.
There was no evidence of an infection control audit.
One bedroom ceiling was stained owing to a shower leak. The premises was clean downstairs. The bedroom and shower areas upstairs were not clean. One bedroom and one shower room did not smell fresh and clean. Ventilation was
an issue in the en suite shower room. The window sills and window blinds were dusty and grimy. There were cobwebs in the walk-in wardrobe and this suggested that the rooms had not been deep cleaned for some time. The issue of cleanliness of the premises was a concern to one resident. Photographs were taken by the inspection team. The registered proprietor informed the inspection team that an immediate deep clean had been organised and that the cleaning services were being reviewed also. Lois Bridges was non-compliant with this regulation because:
(a) of the unacceptable level of cleanliness.
(b) the outstanding ligature anchor points.
3.26 Regulation 26: Staffing
There was not an appropriately qualified member of staff on duty and in charge at all times as the roster did not always include a psychiatrically trained nurse in charge. The management team informed inspectors that, in their experience, it was difficult to source psychiatric nurses. There was no organisational risk register and, therefore, there was no recorded risk mitigation actions in relation to staffing. For example, the risks attached to having non-psychiatrically trained staff in charge and the actions required to mitigate the difficulties sourcing appropriately qualified staff. Staff training records were maintained and ongoing training was available to staff. At the time of inspection, the training record indicated that not all staff were trained in: Basic Life Support, Fire safety, Management and prevention of violence and aggression or in the Mental Health Act 2001. Lois Bridges was non-compliant with this regulation because:
a) There was not an appropriately qualified member of staff on duty and in charge at all times (26 (3)). b) Training had not been completed for all staff in Basic Life Support, Fire safety, Management and prevention of violence and aggression and in the Mental Health Act 2001. (26(4) and (5)).
3.27 Regulation 27: Maintenance of Records
The most recent food safety report was not maintained in the approved centre. The registered proprietor advised that the food safety report was filed at the administrative offices in Howth and had previously been provided to inspectors. Lois Bridges was non-compliant with
27 (3) because: The food safety records were not maintained in Lois Bridges.
3.28 Regulation 28: Register of Residents
The register of residents was not maintained in accordance with Schedule 1 to the regulations and was not-up-to date to reflect the current residents in Lois Bridges. The records maintained were entitled “Mental Health Commission and National research Board data Collection”. Information was recorded in this handwritten book and then transcribed to an electronic record. It was clear from the data recorded that the relevant staff were not cognisant of the requirements of Regulation 28. For example, the last three residents admitted had not been recorded on the electronic register of residents. The recorder had pre-entered the date of discharge in the hard copy record in two instances, although the residents were still in at Lois Bridges.
Lois Bridges was non-compliant with this regulation because:
- a) The register of residents was not up to date (28(1)).
- b) The required data fields were not accurately recorded (28(2)).
3.32 Regulation 32: Risk Management Procedures
There was no risk register maintained in Lois Bridges. Thus, there was no documented evidence of the identification and assessment of risk throughout the approved centre and identified precautions or risk mitigation to control risk. The approved centre was non-compliant with this regulation because there was no risk register maintained for the approved centre (32(2) (a),(b)).
6.3 Notification of Deaths and Incident Reporting
Lois Bridges anorexia treatment Centre was non-compliant with this code of practice as 3.2 of the code required compliance with Regulation 32 Risk Management Procedures
Some of care and treatment in centre for eating disorders was ‘inadequate and unsafe’ – watchdog
