The report follows an unannounced inspection carried out over the course of one day on October 20, 2025 at the centre, which comprises three small terraced bungalows. There were three residents living at the centre at the time.
The bungalows each have two bedrooms, a sitting room/dining room with a small kitchen area, and a bathroom. Each resident has their own bedroom, decorated to their style and preference. The centre is staffed on a 24/7 basis by a person in charge, a clinical nurse manager, a team of staff nurses and a team of healthcare assistants.
Overall, the inspector observed good practice in many areas, and residents appeared to enjoy a positive quality of life. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of residents’ needs and were seen to engage with them in a respectful and supportive manner.
“Individual engagements with residents further highlighted the person‑centred approach adopted within the service, with residents actively participating in routines and activities that reflected their interests and preferences.”
However, the inspection also identified areas requiring improvement, particularly in relation to governance and oversight, and the protection of residents in relation to their finances.
The report states that “a significant concern arose during the review of an internal audit conducted in March 2025, which had noted that flooring in a resident’s sitting room and hallway required replacement due to damage.”
“During the review of audits completed by the provider it was found that in June 2024 and March 2025, damage to the flooring in the hallway and sitting room of a resident’s home was noted. Upon visiting the home, the inspector observed that the flooring had been replaced. However, during a review of documentation as part of the inspection, the inspector found that the resident had paid for both the flooring and its installation using their own funds. This was not an appropriate use of the resident’s funds, as these costs should have been covered by the provider.”
The report reveals that the resident had paid a combined total of €2,286.45 to purchase the flooring and cover the cost of its installation.
“While it was acknowledged that the resident had expressed a preference to change the flooring after being informed it was damaged, and had been involved in selecting the materials — supported by documentation including photographs — this did not negate the provider’s obligation to cover the cost of the works.”
The registered provider of the centre was contacted immediately, and the resident was fully reimbursed before the inspection concluded.
“While the provider acted promptly, concerns remain regarding the initial use of the resident’s funds and the failure of the provider’s governance systems to identify and address the issue prior to the inspection.”
The report stated that it was of “particular concern that this issue had not been identified by the provider or the service’s management team prior to the inspector raising it during the inspection”.
“This reflects a failure in the provider’s governance and financial oversight systems. The use of the resident’s money to pay for works that the provider had already acknowledged as necessary and committed to funding was not appropriate. It did not demonstrate that the resident’s rights were upheld, nor that they were appropriately safeguarded.
“This incident highlights a lack of accountability and oversight within the provider’s internal systems.
“The inspector found that the governance arrangements to ensure residents are protected from inappropriate financial practices required review.”
As a result, the centre was found to be non‑compliant in relation to protection, and substantially compliant in relation to governance and management.
In response to the findings, the provider undertook to review internal financial audit and practices templates relating to financial checks, to ensure greater oversight and accountability in relation to safeguarding residents’ financial transactions.
They also said the service had reimbursed the resident for the cost of the flooring and associated works once the error had been detected on the day of the inspection.
They outlined that a retrospective referral had been made to the Equality and Human Rights Committee to acknowledge the breach of the resident’s human rights, and that a retrospective safeguarding referral had been submitted on behalf of the resident, with an associated safeguarding plan developed.