North Cork Cope facilities inspected by HIQA

HIQA inspections have recently been carried out at two Cope facilities in North Cork, at units ‘North County Cork 1’ and ‘North County Cork 4’. Both facilities were found to be largely compliant across the areas assessed.

NORTH COUNTY CORK 1

The unannounced inspection of ‘North County Cork 1’ was carried out on 14th February this year; the centre is located in a large unnamed rural town. Providing for up to 10 residents of all genders, at the time of the inspection there were seven people in residence. Cope were in the process also of reducing the capacity of the centre to eight people.

The centre, which is on one floor adjoining a Georgian building, was deemed to be homely but areas of ‘ wear and tear’ were observed, relating to the age of the building. While in most areas assessed the centre was judged to be compliant, there were some issues around the ‘Residents’ Rights’. These included the arrangements for residents to access their finances (which could take between a day and a week under current arrangements), as well as unsigned and undated ‘consent cards’, documents which showed the residents’ consent to treatment for “various health and social professionals.”

Following the inspection, management confirmed that the consent booklets were reviewed and signed in March. They also advised that they would be reviewing the protocol for people to have access to their own money and finances “in a timely manner”, also by the end of March. Plans are in place so that residents will have cards to access their own funds by mid-January 2024.

NORTH COUNTY CORK 4

An inspection was carried out on another facility run by Cope in north Cork, this time an announced inspection of a facility that also caters for 10 people. While overall the premises was seen to be well presented, clean, and homely and well furnished, some maintenance was required.

In terms of residents’ support, the inspector observed that people living there engaged in yoga, arts and crafts, and music. One resident was employed locally and professed to enjoy their work.

At the time of the inspection, there was a ‘referral for a compatibility/impact assessment’ ongoing, as seven residents had expressed their unhappiness with one of their peers, who was ‘vocalising loudly’, affecting sleep in one case.

The centre was deemed compliant in many areas, including in terms of management, staffing levels and communication. In one case, however, two incidents that occurred at the centre were not made known to the chief inspector, but were submitted after the inspection. This was the only area assessed where the centre was judged to be ‘ non-compliant’ with standards.