Lois Bridges Management negatively impacted the capacity and capability of the centre for vulnerable people
Lois Bridges management that also run Stepping Stones Residential Care centre: HIQA found that current governance and management arrangements did not demonstrate effective oversight of the centre. There was no active person in charge and therefore the lines of authority and responsibility were unclear. This negatively impacted the capacity and capability of the centre, which adversely impacted residents lived experiences.
Brook House, OSV-0005419
Highlights from this inspection of Brook House run by Stepping stones residential care limited the same company that run Lois Bridges.
During the inspection one “resident was had chosen to spend time in their family home” but the family were unclear if the resident was able to return to Brook House. This sound like removed a person while the inspection is taking place? would this be because the family were not happy and expressed their dissatisfaction with the communication pathways, similar to what a resident said “reluctant to raise concerns” The inspection was triggered on receipts of information of concern and 5 areas of non compliance was found including no person in charge and residents and families “unclear and they were unsure who to engage with”
Residents disappointment with communication and staff leaving and expressing a preference to return to their family home. They were reluctant to raise their concerns to the inspector
The provider could self identify issues within the centre, it did not always have the capacity or capability to drive the improvements required. I can see problems but i cant fix problems, very interesting i wonder if money has anything to do with this, considering that admission were being fast tracked without a person in charge or people appropriately trained to meet the assessed needs of residents.
Despite the best efforts of the provider, some documentation was not readily available during the inspection. Oldest trick in the book, we cant find it now, we will post it out later.
What residents told us and what inspectors observed
During the inspection a resident told the inspector that they were relatively happy in the centre. However, they did say they would prefer to return to their family home. Furthermore, the resident said they were disappointed with the way they were informed about the person in charge leaving the centre. A resident also told the inspector that while staff were very nice, they would be reluctant to raise concerns now that the person in charge had left.
Additionally, a resident’s representative noted their dissatisfaction with the current communication pathways within the centre. They felt this was compounded by the lack of an appointed person in charge. For example, during the inspection a resident had chosen to spend time in their family home. The resident’s family noted they were unclear if the resident was able to return to the designated centre. This was raised with the provider during the inspection. The provider clarified with the resident and their representative, that there was appropriate staffing arrangements in the centre to ensure the resident could safely return at any time.
Capacity and capability
This risk based inspection was triggered on receipt of unsolicited information of concern. This inspection identified that the current governance and management arrangements did not demonstrate effective oversight of the centre. This lack of effective oversight negatively impacted the capacity and capability of the centre, which adversely impacted residents lived experiences.
From a review of notifications and discussions with the provider during the inspection, the inspector noted that the former person in charge had left their post. While the provider had recruited a new person in charge, this person had not started their new role. This left the centre without an appointed full time person in charge. The provider had put an interim arrangement in place but this arrangement did not satisfy Regulation 14: Persons in charge. Furthermore, a representative of a resident told the inspector that the current person in charge arrangements were very unclear and they were unsure who to engage with regarding a residents support needs.
The provider had recently restructured the governance and management arrangements of the centre. This included the appointment of a residential co-ordinator, who the new person in charge would report to. Additionally, a team leader was appointed and this person was to report to the new person in charge. The inspector acknowledged that these new arrangements would enhance the overall governance and management of the centre. That being said, they were not fully embedded at the time of inspection and therefore the lines of authority and accountability within the centre were unclear.
The provider had completed an annual review of quality and care within the centre. However, the annual review did not demonstrate how residents or their representatives were consulted. The provider had systems in place to monitor and review the quality of services provided within the centre. However, while these systems identified service deficits, appropriate actions were not always undertaken to address these issues in a timely manner. This showed that while the provider could self identify issues within the centre, it did not always have the capacity or capability to drive the improvements required. Despite the best efforts of the provider, some documentation was not readily available during the inspection. This highlighted the need for the provider to enhance their information management systems.
The provider had ensured that staff training such as safeguarding vulnerable adults, medication management, fire prevention and manual handling were up to date. However staff had not received appropriate training to meet the assessed needs of residents. For instance staff had not received training to enable them to adequately support residents presenting with mental health difficulties. Therefore some staff felt that while they were doing their best to support residents, they didn’t have the formal training to ensure residents were appropriately supported. The admissions process to the centre required significant improvement. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the provider accelerated the admission of a resident to the centre. A review of documentation and discussions with residents and their representatives found that admission to the centre did not adequately consider the wishes and needs of residents currently living within the centre. It was also unclear if an appropriate compatibility assessment was conducted prior to the admission. A review of this admission by the provider acknowledged that the centres admissions process had not been followed.
Regulation 14: Persons in charge
At the time of inspection there was no active person in charge appointed to the centre.
Judgment: Not compliant
Regulation 16: Training and staff development
Staff had received core training and refresher training. However, appropriate training to support residents with their assessed needs had not been provided. For example, staff had not received appropriate mental health training or suicide prevention training.
Judgment: Not compliant
Regulation 23: Governance and management
There was no active person in charge in the centre and therefore the lines of authority and responsibility were unclear. There was a lack of effective monitoring of the centre. The annual review of quality and care within the centre did not demonstrate consultation with residents or their representatives.
Judgment: Not compliant
There was no evidence that a robust compatibility assessment of a resident was completed prior to new admissions.
Judgment: Not compliant
Regulation 7: Positive behavioural support
There was insufficient guidance available to staff to ensure residents’ assessed needs were proactively supported.
Judgment: Not compliant
HIQA News Updates
Disability services publication statement
Of these 22 inspections, inspectors found a good level of compliance with the regulations and standards in 19 centres, including in centres operated by Resilience Healthcare Limited; St John of God Community Services Company Limited; St Joseph’s Foundation; St Michael’s House; Steadfast House Company Limited; Stepping Stones Residential Care Limited; Sunbeam House Services Company Limited; Three Steps Limited; Waterford Intellectual Disability Association Company Limited; and Western Care Association. At the time of inspection, the provider was ensuring a good standard of support and care that met residents’ needs in these 19 centres.
Examples of good practice observed by inspectors included:
- In a Waterford Intellectual Disability Association centre, the physical facilities were assessed to ensure they met the needs of residents using the respite service. The facilities included the use of an on-site hydrotherapy pool.
- Residents in a Steadfast House Company Centre had a model of care and support that was person centred and focused on residents’ quality of life. This respected the rights and wishes of residents living in the centre, while creating a warm, homely and comfortable place for residents to live in.
- In a St Joseph’s Foundation centre, one resident proudly told the inspector about an accredited training they were participating in at a nearby college and the change from attending college to now studying online.
Inspectors identified non-compliance with the regulations and standards on three inspections.
A follow-up inspection of a St Mary’s Centre (Telford) centre was carried out in relation to residents’ care and support following the provider’s application to the High Court for voluntary liquidation. This had led to the appointment of interim liquidators and the liquidators were now operating the centre on behalf of the provider. While the experience for residents continued to be upsetting, inspectors found that the liquidators had made improvements in the management of the centre and communication with residents. Since this inspection, HIQA has cancelled the registration of St Mary’s Centre (Telford) and the operation of the centre has been taken over by the Health Service Executive.
In a St Michael’s House centre, improvements were required in relation to a safeguarding issue due to incompatibility between residents. Following inspection, the Chief Inspector referred these matters to the National Disability Safeguarding Office, raising concerns in relation to the safeguarding matters and the lack of evidence to demonstrate the consistent and effective implementation of National Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults policies and procedures.
A risk-based inspection of a Stepping Stones Residential Care centre found that current governance and management arrangements did not demonstrate effective oversight of the centre. There was no active person in charge and therefore the lines of authority and responsibility were unclear. This negatively impacted the capacity and capability of the centre, which adversely impacted residents lived experiences.
Read all reports at www.hiqa.ie.
Link to article click here
How is Lois Bridges (Dabakala Limited) connected to Stepping stones residential care limited and stepping stones care limited. Freedom of information provides proof that a connection between the Lois Bridges management is also the directors of Stepping stones care limited and stepping stones care limited
Name: STEPPING STONES RESIDENTIAL CARE LIMITED
Number: 439965 Incorporation: 21/05/2007
Address: 2ND FLOOR HARBOUR
HOUSE
HARBOUR ROAD
HOWTH CO. DUBLIN
HOWTH, DUBLIN
Name: STEPPING STONES CARE LIMITED
Number: 491453 Incorporation: 12/11/2010
Address: STEPPING STONES
RESIDENTIAL CARE
LIMITED
HARBOUR HOUSE
HARBOUR ROAD HOWTH
CO. DUBLIN
HOWTH, DUBLIN
D13 E9H9
Name: DABAKALA LIMITED
Number: 510812 Incorporation: 14/03/2012
Address: 3 GREENFIELD ROAD
DUBLIN 13
SUTTON, DUBLIN,
IRELAND
Business Names
Number Name Status Registered Date
466011 Lois Bridges Normal 01/05/2012
Directors
Director Name: Melanie Taylor
Director Address: HOWTH
CO. DUBLIN, DUBLIN, IRELAND
Date of Birth: July 1971
Current Directorships of Melanie Taylor Status From Date To Date
Lebayon Unlimited Company……………………….Normal 01/10/2022
Dabakala Limited………………………………………..Normal 01/10/2021
Stepping Stones Care Limited………………………Normal 28/08/2020
Stepping Stones Residential Care Limited……..Normal 21/05/2007
Tlc Launderers Limited………………………………..Normal 24/09/1999
Director Name: Darren Wright
Director Address:
HOWTH, DUBLIN, IRELAND
Date of Birth: September 1970
Current Directorships of Darren Wright Status
From Date To Date
Lebayon Unlimited Company……………………………Normal 01/10/2022
Wild Spiral Limited………………………………………….Normal 23/02/2022
Dabakala Limited…………………………………………….Normal 15/12/2021
Howth Yacht Club Company……………………………..Normal 15/12/2020
Stepping Stones Care Limited……………………………Normal 28/08/2020
Chitin Marine Products Limited…………………………Normal 01/11/2012
Stepping Stones Residential Care Limited…………. Normal 21/05/2007
Tlc Launderers Limited …………………………………….Normal 24/09/1999
Previous Directorships of Darren Wright
Simro Limited…………………………………………………Normal 06/11/2002 31/01/2006
Stepping Stones Care Limited…………………………..Normal 15/11/2010 01/03/2011
Baybourne Limited………………………………………….Dissolved 27/11/2000 31/01/2006
Galepoint Limited……………………………………………Dissolved 27/11/2000 31/01/2006
Malahide Railway Refreshment Rooms……………..Dissolved 14/08/2001 11/01/2023
L & C Fishing Company Limited……………………….Dissolved 20/05/2003
Emerald Isle Global Trading Limited………………..Dissolved 11/06/2003 14/04/2004
Wrights Deli Limited……………………………………….Dissolved 20/11/2008 01/10/2012
Wrights Deli Limited……………………………………….Dissolved 01/10/2012
Irelands Eye Seafoods Limited………………………….Normal 16/11/2020 25/01/2023
Howth Fish Sales Limited…………………………………Normal 20/12/2021 25/01/2023
Heuston Railway Refreshment Rooms……………….Normal 16/11/2020 25/01/2023
Kilmore Exports Limited…………………………………..Normal 20/12/2021 25/01/2023
Fermoy Fish Limited………………………………………..Normal 20/12/2021 25/01/2023
Wrights Airport Convenience Store Limited……….Normal 16/11/2020 25/01/2023
A Taste Of Ireland Airports Limited…………………..Normal 16/11/2020 25/01/2023
Wrights Of Howth Seafood Bars Limited……………Normal 16/11/2020 25/01/2023
Wrights Of Howth Group Holdings Limited……….Normal 16/11/2020 25/01/2023
Kitestown Limited……………………………………………Normal 16/11/2020 25/01/2023
Wrights Of Howth (Airport) Limited………………….Normal 16/11/2020 25/01/2023
Wrights Of Howth Limited………………………………..Normal 16/11/2020 25/01/2023
