HIQA IPAS Inspections highlight challenges in Safeguarding, Risk Management and Governance

Recent HIQA inspection reports have revealed critical non-compliance issues within International Protection Accommodation Services (IPAS) centres, particularly in areas of governance, safeguarding, risk management and identification, assessment and response to special needs. These findings highlight urgent areas of concern requiring immediate attention.

Introduction

HIQA has published eight new inspection reports on IPAS centres. These reports highlight ongoing non-compliance issues in relation to identification, assessment and response to special needs; contingency planning and emergency preparedness; accommodation; food, catering and cooking facilities; governance, accountability and leadership; responsive workforce; and safeguarding and protection.

This article provides a summary of the key findings under the related Theme of the National Standards for accommodation offered to people in the protection process (2019). By addressing these deficiencies through robust Quality and Safety Management Systems, IPAS centres can work toward compliance, ensuring the dignity, rights, and safety of residents. For service providers, these insights present an opportunity to enhance your operational frameworks and deliver care that meets the National Standards effectively.

Summary of Findings

THEME 1: GOVERNANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND LEADERSHIP

There were mixed levels of compliance with the national standards identified through the completion of this inspection and some areas required urgent action to be taken by the provider to ensure a safe and comfortable living environment was provided.
While there were governance arrangements in place which clearly identified the lines of authority for the various positions in the staff team, the effectiveness of this structure was compromised by limited oversight, lack of accountability and poor reporting and monitoring systems.
Management systems required improvement to ensure there was appropriate and effective governance and oversight of all aspects of service provision.
There were no effective formal quality assurance or reporting systems to ensure the service provider was aware of all risks, incidents and safeguarding concerns.
The service provider had not yet implemented systems for the oversight and monitoring of the quality of care and experience of adults living in the centre. Audits of the quality of the service had not been completed.
While residents’ were consulted with regularly this was done on an informal basis and there were no records of this consultation informing the delivery and planning of the service.
There was an annual review of the quality and safety of the service completed however the residents were not actively involved in its development in order to promote continual improvement in the service. The annual review also did not inform a programme of improvement within the service.
Improvement to the provider’s monitoring system was necessary to ensure that pertinent information about the service was reported to the centre manager in their absence.
There was no residents’ charter available to residents at the time of inspection.
There was no alternative document that informed residents of the specific services available to them while living in the centre.
A centralised recording system and a process to trend and review risks, safeguarding concerns, complaints and incidents was required.
Communication and handovers between centre staff and agency staff required improvement.
While some auditing systems had been developed, they did not cover all aspects of the service.
The impact on the human rights of the residents needed to be considered when developing and implementing policies and procedures.
A comprehensive service improvement plan needed to be developed for the service to focus on the overall governance, quality and safety of the service.
Records of the discussions and the actions agreed at team meetings required improvement, and needed to include risk, complaints, incidents and learnings as standing agenda items.
Improvements were required to develop a system to track complaints, safeguarding concerns, incidents and adverse events over time to identify trends and learnings.
Residents’ views and feedback on all areas of service provision needed to be considered and risk assessed to decide upon appropriate actions where required.
The service provider had not completed a self-assessment of their compliance against the national standards.
Further work was required in the area of policy development to ensure all of the required policies were in place for the safe delivery of services.

THEME 2: RESPONSIVE WORKFORCE

One staff member who had periods of residence of six months or more outside Ireland did not have international police checks carried out. In addition, this staff member did not have up-to-date Garda vetting completed in line with the requirement of national policy.
All staff files were reviewed and the inspectors noted that there were no references available for staff members.
There was no staff recruitment policy in the centre.
There were no risk assessments carried out for a staff member with positive Garda vetting disclosures.
There was an absence of regular, formal and recorded supervision for staff members or centre managers as required by the national standards.
A formal performance appraisal system was not in in place for staff members at the time of the inspection.
The provider had not undertaken a training needs analysis to ensure all the required training as prescribed in the national standards was delivered to the staff team. There was a significant gap in the training requirements as outlined in the national standards.
The full staff team had received child protection training but none had received training in the safeguarding and protection of vulnerable adults.

THEME 3: CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

The risk management framework required further development to ensure that all risks were identified, assessed, monitored and appropriate control measures were in place to provide a safe service.
The service provider did have a risk management policy in place but had not completed a risk analysis of the service and not developed a risk register.
The provider had not completed an in-depth risk analysis of the service and risks such as deficits in staff training had not been identified and added to the risk register.
Some improvement to the process was required to ensure that the risk register included all known risks that were being managed in the centre.
Improvement to the monitoring of fire risks was necessary. Inspectors found that most internal fire doors were wedged open, which would compromise a safe and effective evacuation in the event of a fire. This had not been noted on fire safety checks.
There were some contingency plans in place to ensure continuity of service in the event of unforeseen circumstances, however at the time of inspection they were being reviewed and were not recorded in the risk register.
A policy to guide practice in relation to the identification, assessment and management of risk was created but this did not provide sufficient guidance and required review.
Several risks had been identified, assessed and documented on the centre’s risk register but a number of risks identified by the inspectors during the inspection had not been identified.
Decisions made regarding restrictive practices in the centre had not been risk assessed to determine the impact of these decisions on residents and the operation of the service.
A regular review of the risk register was required.
A review of the frequency and completion of fire drills and the education of residents regarding fire safety was required.
There were no contingency plans to ensure continuity of service in the event of a disaster or unforeseen circumstance.

THEME 8: SAFEGUARDING AND PROTECTION

While child protection concerns were reported to Tusla in line with national policy, there were no effective systems in place to protect children and to contribute to their ongoing safety in the centre. There was also lack of effective management, oversight and monitoring of safeguarding arrangements in the centre.
The centre had a child protection policy but there was no guidance for the team in relation to the supervision or childminding arrangements specific to the needs of the residents in the centre.
Child protection and welfare concerns relating to some children had been addressed by the management team, without delay, but mandated reports were not submitted to Tusla, in line with the requirements of the Children First national policy. These concerns were subsequently reported during the inspection. A system to review all concerns relating to the protection or welfare of children had not been developed.
Some residents were unaware of who the designated liaison person was.
Some child protection and welfare concerns were not managed in line with the requirements the Children First national policy. A review of the child minding practice in the centre was required to ensure that parents were able to have their children minded when required, and that they were aware of the procedure regarding this.
The system in place to review incidents and adverse events needed further development and improvement as there were limited details recorded about learnings from the incidents or follow up actions required. A policy for the review and evaluation of such incidents was required.
Welfare concerns for children and adults were not centrally recorded or tracked over time, and therefore could not be reviewed to ensure appropriate actions were taken or to further inform quality improvement within the service.
While there were procedures in place for dealing with situations where the safety of residents may be compromised, these were not implemented on a consistent basis.
While the service provider ensured serious incidents were appropriately reported and residents supported, they had not developed a system to review and trend incidents regularly and to learn from them to improve the service continuously.

THEME 10: IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TO SPECIAL NEEDS

While the service provider was recruiting a reception officer, one was not in place at the time of the inspection.
There was no manual developed to guide the work of the reception officer.
The service provider did not have a policy in place to identify, address and respond to existing and emerging special reception needs.
The service provider had not ensured that the staff team had received the appropriate training to support them to identify and respond to the needs of residents.
A recording system was required to ensure that the special reception needs of residents could be appropriately responded to and monitored.
While the reception officer had the appropriate qualifications and was part of the senior management team, further development of the role was required to ensure that sufficient training and knowledge was attained to enable the reception officer to become the principal point of contact for residents, staff and management.

Conclusion

HIQA’s inspection reports reveal significant shortcomings within IPAS centres, particularly in safeguarding, governance, and risk management. Addressing these issues is imperative to ensure the safety and well-being of residents under international protection. A proactive approach—grounded in strong governance structures, comprehensive risk management frameworks, and ongoing quality improvement—can foster better outcomes for residents and service providers alike.

HCI is at the forefront, providing essential support IPAS centres in navigating these challenges. From developing comprehensive risk management frameworks, to best practice policies and procedures, our expert services are tailored to meet your specific needs. Together, we can transform these findings into actionable solutions, advancing care quality while achieving compliance with national standards.

Contact Us

For more information contact info@hci.care or Phone +353 (0)1 6292559.

GET IN TOUCH NOW