Waterford Cheshire 'non-compliant' in risk management after latest HIQA inspection
Inspectors found that the clinical risk register at Waterford Chesire was not "reflective" in adequately identifying risks in the centre.
While Waterford Cheshire received a mostly positive report after a recent inspection by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), the centre was deemed non-compliant in the category of Risk Management.
The facility, on John's Hill in Waterford city, provides supports and purpose-built accommodation to adults with physical disabilities and neurological conditions. It was established in 2003 and can accommodate up to 16 residents. There is onsite nursing and support staff to assist the residents 24/7.
Cheshire Waterford was compliant in every report category except for 'Risk Management', according to the latest report published by HIQA.
The report stated: "Inspectors found that staff and the local management team were recognising the risk relating to the 17 allegations or suspicions of abuse which had been notified to the Chief Inspectors of Social Services since January 2024 to date, however, there was no general risk assessment in place for this centre in relation to safeguarding.
"In addition, where specific risks presented for a resident, individual safeguarding risk assessments were not in place for them."
Inspectors found that the clinical risk register was not "reflective" in adequately identifying risks in the centre.
The report conceded that incidents and accidents were documented, however: "Inspectors found that trends relating to incidents and learning as a result of a review of incidents was not regularly discussed at staff meetings in 2025."
The previous HIQA report for Cheshire was published in September 2023. In that report, the risk management procedures were deemed as 'substantially compliant'.
On the day of the inspection, there were 15 people living onsite, mostly with high physical support needs. According to the report, the residents were able to lead busy and productive lives, with one person in paid employment and another person regularly going on holidays with their family.
The report found strong communication between the residents and staff, with an element of trust and respect in their interactions. In one case, a resident was observed successfully communicating through Irish-sign language with the person in charge and staff.
The report stated: "Overall, residents were positive about where they lived and the activities they had access to, they spoke about how they felt safe and staff were respectful to them. Staff were observed to knock and seek consent before entering a resident's apartment or bedroom."
The report was satisfied with the provider's oversight of safeguarding procedures. Safeguarding protocols were reviewed at bi-annual meetings, resident's meetings and through monthly newsletters.
The report stated: "The Inspectors found that staff had access to training and refresher training in line with the organisation's policy, including safeguarding training."
The provider had recently increased the staffing levels for respite care, which had yielded positive results for the residents as they had a 'continuity of care'. All the staff were found to have completed the proper safeguarding training and were undergoing additional training for residents' particular needs.
Overall, staff reported being well supported by their local management teams and felt comfortable to report any concerns or queries. The report complimented the general governance, record keeping and safeguarding of residents at the facility.
