Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 2006

Admissions to Nursing Homes: Presentation by HSE.

Today's discussion is with the Health Service Executive regarding the suspension of new admissions to five nursing homes. I welcome Mr. Aidan Browne, national director of primary community and continuing care services; Mr. Noel Mulvihill, local health manager for Dublin north central; Ms Cate Hartigan, assistant national director of planning, monitoring and evaluation; Mr. Paschal Moynihan, director of older people's services, and Ms Mary Culliton, head of consumer affairs.

Before I ask Mr. Browne to commence his opening statement, I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I ask Mr. Browne to confine his opening remarks to ten or 12 minutes to allow time for members to ask questions.

Mr. Aidan Browne

I will do my best. I thank the Chairman for the invitation to meet the committee. I hope we will be able to address the issues raised.

There are currently 436 private nursing homes in operation throughout the country. The vast majority of these provide a very high level of care for their residents and their highly committed, professional and well trained staff members strive to deliver excellent care. As these homes provide varying levels of care for older people, from low to high dependency, it is essential that the HSE, as the national health authority, should work with them to regulate the work they do and ensure they provide care that is safe and secure. The HSE continues to take steps to ensure the highest quality of services are available in nursing homes for older people and that where there are substandard services, they are identified speedily and appropriate corrective action taken.

It is important to note that nursing home owners are primarily responsible for providing a high quality service for those in their care and have a duty of care to their residents. As in all health care delivery, the professionals employed in nursing homes, principally doctors and nurses are accountable, like all health care professionals, for their own actions and inaction as governed by their professional bodies such as the Medical Council and An Bord Altranais.

The HSE is responsible for inspecting these services to ensure they comply with the relevant regulations. The HSE also provides subventions for residents and contracts beds directly with the nursing home sector. It registers nursing homes and subsequently inspects them. More than 18 inspection teams are currently in place across the country. These are three person teams consisting of doctors, nurses and environmental health officers and each team inspects nursing homes at least twice a year and does this on an unannounced basis. Many nursing homes have follow-up inspections, some as often as weekly or fortnightly. Where necessary, teams are at liberty to make their inspections at night or at weekends. Between January and October of this year, the HSE carried out 666 statutory inspections. This does not include follow-up inspections.

At the outset in 1993, the regulations were interpreted separately by each health board. The HSE is now taking a consistent and standardised approach to the registration and inspection process. The Health (Nursing Homes) Act 1990, the only legislation pertaining to the older persons sector and the Nursing Homes (Care and Welfare) Regulations 1993, which follow from the Act, allow a health authority to issue proceedings against a proprietor or person in charge. Where, in the opinion of the authority, the regulations are not being complied with, prosecutions can only be instigated in the District Court and there is no provision that allows a health authority to make an application to the court for the closure of a nursing home.

The procedure for removing nursing homes from the registration is a lengthy and cumbersome one and can be delayed considerably in the event that a registered proprietor resists an action. Members may recall the former South Western Health Board commenced a process to remove Rostrevor Nursing Home from the register but the health board was so concerned at the time about the welfare of the residents of the nursing home that it sought to obtain a High Court injunction closing the nursing home pending the outcome of the proceedings already in train in the District Court. The case was heard by Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan who expressed concerns from the outset that the 1990 Act and 1993 regulations did not contain provisions whereby a nursing home could be closed pending deregistration. The judge refused the relief sought by the South Western Health Board.

There is a further provision in section 9 of the Health (Nursing Homes) Act which allows health authorities to apply to the District Court for an order granting them temporary management of a nursing home. Such an application requires the authority to demonstrate a failure by a nursing home to comply with the regulations. The authority must be in a position to identify the person to manage and take charge of the home. An application under the section can be brought on an ex parte basis initially for a period of two weeks or on notice to the proprietor and, if successful, shall last for a period of three months. While the provision appears to constitute a ready-made option of the type favoured by Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan, it implies significant issues for the HSE. The HSE would have to secure and appoint staff to a private institution and, in taking over an institution, take over the liabilities of a private enterprise.

The Circuit Court has jurisdiction on the hearing of an appeal to grant an order declaring that a registered proprietor should be disqualified during such period as may be specified in the order from continuing to be in charge or concerned with the management of the nursing home to which a conviction relates or, at the discretion of the court, any nursing home. In such an instance, the standard of proof is high and the gathering of proof by designated officers is not always easy. To bring a prosecution, the HSE must rely on the evidence of the designated officers, who are the three inspectors who can be formally designated. Such evidence is usually required to include the provision of a great deal of detail including dates, times, who the designated officers met, why they were there, who else was present, what they recorded, etc. Generally, issues raised relate to care and where prosecutions fail it is due to the inability of the health system to describe what constitutes suitable and sufficient care. There is a lack of regulation to state this.

The current Act and regulations fail to provide for a speedy remedy in cases in which the HSE is concerned about the care and welfare of residents of a private nursing home. The current Act and regulations are cumbersome and it has been recognised for some time that new regulations and legislation are required. The Department of Health and Children is currently revising the Act and regulations to provide for more robust and speedy responses to issues arising in the care and welfare of patients in registered private nursing homes.

Following recent inspections, the HSE has suspended admissions at seven nursing homes in the eastern region. One of these has now complied with all conditions and is being advised in this context, while two in Louth and Meath respectively have been the subject of a long-running legal process in the District Court. Within the current regulatory framework, the HSE is unable to name these nursing homes until due process has been completed. HSE inspection teams have carried out risk assessments in all of these nursing homes and consider that there is no immediate risk to residents. It is important to underline that an objective risk assessment was carried out once it was identified that we needed to suspend admissions. The principal issue was that the home could not cater for any additional dependency load. All the homes in question are being monitored actively and further action will be taken as necessary.

The imposition of the suspensions is in line with recent public assurances by the HSE that where concerns are raised by inspectors about a private nursing home, no beds will be contracted by the HSE with that home until any issues are resolved. Furthermore, any such home will be advised not to take privately referred admissions during the suspension period, display a notice to this effect and inform all current and prospective residents. We are developing and finalising a protocol for advising nursing homes of admissions being suspended.

Members will be aware that the HSE came into being at the beginning of 2005 and was in a period of significant transition for at least the first half of that year, about which time the "Prime Time" programme on Leas Cross was aired. At that time we brought together an internal working group chaired by Paschal Moynihan who is here with me and who is director of services for older people in the HSE western region. The group comprises current inspection team members from the medical and health professions, including doctors, nurses and environmental health officers. The individuals were invited to join because of their current expertise.

The group reported in July and most of its recommendations have now been implemented. These include standardisation of the inspection process with the result that the inspection process and reporting structure are now uniform across the country, as well as the publication of the inspection reports. We have started posting the reports on the HSE website. There has been an issue regarding indemnity for the inspectors if their names are brought into the public domain. We have now dealt with that issue and are satisfied that all reports can now be posted on the website. Our intention is that the reports for all 400 nursing homes will be on the website by the end of the first quarter of 2007. The delay period is needed to make sure that all due process issues have been dealt with before the reported is posted. All inspections are now unannounced, but it is important to point out that inspections were unannounced in many health boards since 1993. However, it was not a standard practice.

Other recommendations include the establishment of dedicated teams. Fully dedicated teams now exist in Dublin north east, which has the largest number of private nursing homes in the country, as well as the former mid west. The HSE is moving to put dedicated teams in place across the country. There are issues in several areas where there is a shortage of medical staff available to do this work. This transition will also raise IR, HR and resource issues, but priority is being given to assigning these resources. This will allow for all teams to operate on a full-time basis, building the expertise and information that can be shared nationally. A new national training programme for inspection team members has been designed, and an independent professional training programme has been tendered for to replace the existing schemes that operated under the former health boards. This comprehensive training programme will begin in January and will be completed by April.

The HSE is a strong advocate of an independent inspectorate. Our roles as inspector, provider and purchaser are inconsistent. We anticipate that legislation allowing for an independent inspectorate will be established. Once this has been enacted, the inspectorate will be established on an independent, quality assured basis. It will come under the auspices of HIQA, the Health Information and Quality Authority.

The inspection team consists of a doctor, nurse and environmental health officer. During inspections they look for patient details, nursing records, rug records, care plans — a recent development — patient registration, admissions and discharges, contracts of care, complaints, PIN or nurse registration details, staff rosters and policies and procedures. They will visit each room and talk with patients, although these are not formally recorded interviews. The medical officer has the facility to examine patients and patient records if appropriate. The team will discuss all matters with the manager. As the inspections may be unannounced, it may be necessary to visit the nursing home again to speak to the proprietor.

Where a decision is made to suspend admissions, an objective risk assessment is carried out to assess the level of risk to current residents. This assessment becomes a part of an ongoing monitoring process. As an assurance, it is necessary that once we make a decision on a nursing home, we do not abandon the people in that home. We must assure ourselves that there is no risk to the clients in that home. If the risk increases the HSE will re-assess the situation at each and every visit. It may then decide to cap the number of residents. The nursing home must advise all current and potential clients that admissions are suspended and, where necessary, inform residents and their families. This is only necessary where patient care is compromised. We are always balancing the issue between protecting clients and making them insecure. We must remember that the nursing home is that person's home for a time. The HSE may then decide to take a legal route and initiate legal proceedings against the home. Under the new standardised regime, inspection teams are obliged to discuss the conclusions of the inspection with the nursing home proprietor at the premises and are obliged to make them aware of any issues that have arisen.

The members will be fully aware of all aspects of the Leas Cross case. The HSE published the independent report on 10 November. The report was commissioned by the HSE and compiled by Professor Des O'Neill. His report was received by the HSE during the summer but, owing to legal constraints, primarily the fact that Professor O'Neill was not prepared to revisit the report on foot of submissions, it was necessary for us ultimately to issue his unedited report with the submissions received from those who were readily identifiable in the report.

The HSE has fully accepted all the recommendations in the report. We have taken steps to implement them and many are already in train. Professor O'Neill has been invited to participate in a group to oversee the implementation of the recommendations.

As part of the information released at the time, we outlined what specific action was being taken in regard to each recommendation. We have forwarded the report on Leas Cross to the Garda Síochána, An Bord Altranais and the Medical Council for their consideration. While it is not clearly identifiable whether criminal matters are involved, there may be professional matters for doctors and nurses that should be dealt with by their professional bodies. The Garda Commissioner has advised me that he is having the file examined by the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation and we will work with him in that regard and provide him with any information that is available to us.

In recent days the HSE met some relatives of former Leas Cross residents and has written to more than 100 known relatives offering them individual family meetings with senior personnel. Patient consumer advocacy groups have met and continue to meet senior management of the HSE. A meeting has been arranged for 11 December with Age Action Ireland, Patient Focus, the Irish Patients Association, the Irish Hospice Foundation and others. The objective is to develop a framework for the inclusion of knowledge advocates. We believe the inclusion of older people in establishing and monitoring standards of care would be an important step forward. We are seeking a way to include them in the inspection process.

With regard to complaints, Ms Mary Culliton has responsibility for the implementation of a comprehensive complaints policy in the HSE. We believe the complaints have a direct relationship with the implementation of quality and standards across the HSE and across the areas for which we have regulatory responsibility. The new integrated complaints system will provide an additional pathway for patients and relatives with concerns about a nursing home.

Death notifications were an issue in the Leas Cross report. Under current legislation, nursing home owners are obliged to notify the local area medical officer of all deaths in a nursing home within 48 hours. If they fail to do so, they are in breach of the regulations but it is a technical breach and it is very difficult to impose sanctions on a nursing home if this section is not adhered to. We anticipate the new legislation will strengthen the sanctions available.

The HSE information line — 1850 24 1850 — is available for anybody with concerns about care of the elderly, elder abuse and nursing home issues. We will ensure matters are followed up.

I thank Mr. Browne. Before I throw the meeting open to questions, I note the purpose of this meeting is with regard to the suspension of new admissions to five nursing homes. Mr. Browne's presentation broadened the issue considerably, for which we thank him, and some of the presentation related to Leas Cross. Professor O'Neill will come before the committee on 30 November in regard to Leas Cross. Do members think it suitable that representatives of the HSE should attend on the same day? We might leave Leas Cross off the agenda for today and discuss it on that day. Is that all right?

I would like to refer briefly to Leas Cross, especially when we have this team here. It is the issue of the day.

All right. We will bank the questions from members in groups of three and then the delegation may answer them. We will begin with Deputy Connolly, Senator Browne and Deputy Twomey.

I thank Mr. Browne and his team for their comprehensive presentation.

Deciding to put elderly people into a nursing home is a major decision for a family, both for the person going to the home and for the family sending him or her to it. In the current climate, that decision is even more difficult. Another issue is the fact that some infections are now contracted in nursing homes as well as in hospitals.

I could not agree more on the issue of independent and unannounced inspections. However, my experience of inspections, particularly with regard to the mental health area, is that they are well signposted and are little more than hypocritical exercises. One knows three months in advance of the inspection and can put one's best foot forward on the day. The inspectors come in and appear to have a different policy in every hospital, which is something I can never understand. How can they have a different policy for each hospital if we are meant to progress sensibly. I will wait to see what happens with regard to nursing home inspections.

As outlined, I am somewhat concerned that the inspections may equate to those in the mental health services. One can do a fantastic book exercise. If a home knows what is required, it could target that and have all its books and care plans available. It could employ somebody to prepare these. I am concerned that people will learn the game quickly and have all the paperwork and administration in order. Mr. Browne mentioned the people to whom the inspectors would talk, but the patient or service user got scant mention. The person paying the bill or the patient's relative might be more forthcoming on the particular institution or home. When some people working in an institution see people with power coming to inspect, they tend to clam up somewhat and not give a full report. I hope the inspectors will deal more with relatives as that is where they will get the real story.

There is an 1850 complaint line available. It is natural in any health service, whether a general hospital or a nursing home — people are more vulnerable in a nursing home because it is their home — that if people make a complaint, they will pay the price. This is not in doubt.

It is good to know that out of 436 homes, there are only complaints about seven of them. However, I am concerned that those seven are in a cluster. Is it that somebody in the area is active and has rooted them out or have people got together to work on the issue? It is not logical that they are all in the one area and that we do not have homes being closed in Cork, Galway or the north west. What observations has the delegation to make on this?

The presentation mentioned the professions, including doctors and nurses, working in the nursing home sector and that they are accountable for their actions. The care workers were not mentioned. Sometimes these are patients' best advocates, but they have been left out. Often, patients identify more with care workers than with a doctor. It is important to keep care workers in the chain.

How does the HSE distinguish between long-stay institutions and nursing homes? Do intellectually disabled people in nursing homes or misplaced in psychiatric hospitals come under the HSE's ambit? Who has responsibility for them? Is it right to place responsibility for them with the mental health services. They should come under the ambit of community service.

Another issue of concern is the notion that the poor HSE has been landed with the horrible situation at Leas Cross and that it was caught in a transition period. The same personnel are in place and were employed by taxpayers during the whole period. Therefore, the HSE should not run and duck for cover. It must stand up and admit it was there because new people have not been brought in.

The HSE has stated it could make an application to the District Court for the granting of temporary management. I saw the Leas Cross nursing home on television and it looked like a modern purpose-built unit. I understand the Health Service Executive moved patients out of it. If the HSE is empowered to install a management structure, why did it not so do? It is illogical.

I consider the HSE to be somewhat liable in another respect. The HSE funded and subvented many people from the psychiatric and disability services. Although such people may not necessarily have been suitable, it may have been responsible for tossing them into that nursing home. There is no reason the HSE should not have known exactly what it was doing. Moreover, there is no point in the delegates hiding behind the umbrella of the HSE because they were in the Northern Area Health Board or whatever. Who was the real culprit?

Should I take it that 206 nursing homes were not visited twice? If the figure of 436 constitutes the number of nursing homes and 666 inspections were carried out, does that mean that 206 were not visited twice, as should be done every year?

The problem in Leas Cross appears to have been caused by the transfer of patients from St. Ita's Hospital, Portrane. Who authorised the transfer of patients to Leas Cross, which appears to have exacerbated the problem?

The two key issues arising from this affair are the need for proper inspection teams and the need to have careful guidelines on minimum staff numbers within nursing homes. Last night I learned that in 2001 the former Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children with responsibility for this area, Dr. Tom Moffatt, promised sweeping changes that never happened. I refer to the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, and the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Seán Power. When they took office, were they briefed and informed that this issue was a major problem which would face them in their new Ministries? If so, what was their reaction?

I have a query regarding the proper training of inspection teams. It is suspected that such teams were more interested in environmental issues than in patient care and that this is where the problem lay. While they were quick to spot hygiene problems in a nursing home, they might not have been good at discerning problems affecting patients. How will the delegates rectify this situation?

Why was Mr. Browne left on his own at the launch of the Leas Cross report? It seemed unusual that Professor Drumm was absent and that no Ministers were available. It did not look good as no one appeared to take responsibility. It was left to Mr. Browne and, as a result, turned into something of a public relations disaster.

Mr. Browne's contribution mentioned that the need for new legislation on regulations has been recognised for some time. I ask him to expand on this subject. He also discussed the new comprehensive complaints policy. What mechanisms exist for those who have no family or whose families live abroad or some distance from them, especially if they are not in a position to make a complaint themselves? Are there special safeguards for such people?

I seek clarification regarding patients who die in nursing homes. I presume that on the death of a patient, a doctor is telephoned and goes to the nursing home to sign the death certificate. Is Mr. Browne fully satisfied there are no suspicious cases outstanding? I am referring to the death of any patient in a nursing home that has been certified by a doctor but about which the HSE is unhappy regarding the cause of death. Does Mr. Browne believe such cases could be re-investigated in the context of what went on in Leas Cross?

The Leas Cross report and the matters under discussion today are completely interwoven. It is difficult to separate them as the events at Leas Cross caused this meeting to take place. It is worth quoting some points made in the O'Neill report. Before making his recommendations, Professor O'Neill states:

[t]his is not to deny the motivation, kindness and dedication of very many who work in nursing homes, but rather represents a failure of Government and the health system to address both the context and standards of care in the light of widespread national and international concerns over the quality of care in nursing homes. A lack of action by the HSE and the Government has dragged all nursing homes down in the eyes of the public. Mr. Browne spoke about the balance in providing patients with information and making them feel insecure. I know exactly where the balance is formed. Patients are unbelievably insecure in regard to quality and the standards applied in nursing homes. Much of the blame for this rests on the shoulders of the Government and senior management. Despite the fact that the presentation was made in a dry manner, huge concerns remain.

In a letter to The Irish Times Mr. Browne stated, “Your readers can be assured that the HSE will not tolerate nursing homes operating below acceptable standards”. The reality is that the HSE did tolerate nursing homes operating below unbelievably low standards and did nothing about it for a long time. The slowness of the HSE’s response is disgraceful. It took 12 months for the working group to report on the matter. The HSE has been publicly aware of the issue since 3 June 2005 when it was highlighted on “Prime Time”. It has also been aware of it within its job description since 2001. Mr. Browne should explain to the committee where the chief executive of the HSE is. We have heard little or nothing from the CEO of the HSE, the three Ministers of State or the Minister for Health and Children in an official capacity, which is disgraceful.

I have a few specific questions for Mr. Browne. When an inspection team reports to the HSE, who makes the recommendations? Mr. Browne has stated the inspection teams include a doctor, a nurse and an environmental health officer. I know that neither a doctor, a nurse nor an environmental health officer has been involved in inspection teams even in the past three months. How much of the truth is Mr. Browne providing the committee today? If issues relating to patient safety are highlighted, what is the chain of responsibility and how far up the line will concerns of the magnitude identified at Leas Cross go? The HSE informed Professor O'Neill that it had no idea what was happening at Leas Cross. What I would like to know is, if the HSE was not informed, who was responsible. Would the Minister have been informed? When did this scandal stop? Who prevented it from going any further?

When it comes to corporate governance within the HSE, with whom does responsibility lie when patients are assaulted, sustain grievous bodily harm or, in some cases, die?

In regard to illegal nursing home charges, the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, avoided his responsibilities by stating he was not responsible, while the former Minister of State with responsibility for the elderly, Deputy Callely, avoided his responsibilities by stating he had whispered into the ear of the Taoiseach. In this case, patients died prematurely or were, to some degree, tortured in a small percentage of bad nursing homes. As correctly stated, the O'Neill report has been forwarded to the Garda Síochána. Somebody will have to pay the price, given the very serious charges made. The HSE should clarify for the committee where it believes responsibility lies, not just in the case of Leas Cross but in the case of other nursing homes at which problems arose during the past five years.

Has Mr. Browne, as director of the primary care and continuous care unit within the HSE and in an effort to inform himself of what had gone wrong, interviewed the nursing home inspection team and the chain of command up to and including senior managers named in the Sunday newspapers as being heavily involved in the Leas Cross nursing home? This is what the Garda Síochána will be expected to do.

I would also like to know Mr. Browne's definition of due process. It is worth noting what is contained in the local recommendations in the O'Neill report on Leas Cross which state: "Residents and their families of any nursing home that scored poorly in the ERHA tendering process in 2005 for heavy dependency intermediate care beds should be informed of this as there is a high likelihood that there are residents with high or maximum dependency in all of these nursing homes". What I would like to know is, given that the HSE expects nursing homes to place a notice on the front door informing people it has placed restrictions on the patients they can take in, whether it followed through on one of two local recommendations made in the report by Professor O'Neill. Has it informed all residents and their families of nursing homes which scored poorly in its tendering process in 2005 for additional nursing home beds?

Another important point — the subject of one of the recommendations in the Travers report on illegal nursing home charges — is that the Minister's political advisers are not part of the chain of command in the Department of Health and Children. I presume political advisers are not involved in the chain of command in the HSE. The reason I put this question is that I have been made aware that an adviser to the Minister was screaming and shouting at a staff member of the HSE for not putting more elderly patients into private nursing homes. Has Mr. Browne been made aware of this episode and, if so, what will he do about it? Clear recommendations were made two years ago that political advisers should have no role in the running of the health service, but it is obvious that they do. Will Mr. Browne comment on the role of political advisers in the health service?

HSE staff command respect, but there is a serious lack of confidence in HSE management. I do not want to tar each of the five delegates with the same brush, but management of the HSE gives rise to serious concern. I think some senior HSE personnel are lying and colluding with Ministers to hide the truth from the general public. Many of the assertions made in the document circulated are not fully correct. The delegates are aware that while inspection teams comprise three persons, the full team does not carry out inspections.

Will the Deputy withdraw the allegation of lying? The rules of the House state so clearly. Will the Deputy rephrase his remarks?

There are serious concerns about the veracity of what is being said, not only at this committee but also in public. We need clearer responses from the HSE which is taking the rap for the Government. I hope nobody is foolish enough to take the rap when matters are raised by the Garda Síochána.

Will Mr. Browne or a member of his team be able to answer the questions asked?

We will do our best to answer them. I will deal with them in reverse order, given the serious nature of the questions put by Deputy Twomey.

We operate on the basis of delegated responsibility. I have delegated responsibility for the primary community and continuing care sector which includes nursing homes, all of the services for the care of the elderly, mental health and intellectual disability and disability services generally. There is no question of anybody ducking his or her responsibility or, as Senator Browne suggested, that I was left alone to front the situation. This is my area of responsibility and I do not have a problem with taking responsibility for it. I am responsible for improving the level of service provided.

Deputy Connolly has made the point that we cannot duck our responsibilities because of the transition from the regional health boards to the Health Service Executive. I am not attempting to duck responsibility but the period of transition is important. We have moved from a system with ten separate organisations to a single system for which we have absolute responsibility. It is not always easy to identify the reasons something happened in the past. There was and is a clear line of responsibility, from the nursing home inspection teams upwards. The next person in line has traditionally been the general manager who would always oversee the signing-off on documents. Inspection reports are signed off by the chairperson of the team and agreed with the general manager. If there are matters arising that must be followed legally, they must be signed off and approved by the general manager. Further issues work their way up the line. In the former northern area boards there was clear and well documented evidence that these issues had been dealt with in a very serious way up the line. It is also clear that the actions taken were not sufficient. The tendency and culture in most boards which I attribute to the weakness of the legislation was to work with nursing homes rather than impose sanctions. The boards concentrated on trying to bring people to a level of improvement. In his report Professor O'Neill identified this flawed view in the case of Leas Cross and I agree with him. A number of factors came together in Leas Cross, including the fact that the nursing home increased its capacity from 38 beds to 111 beds in a very short time; that it took a large number of high dependency clients into its care and that assumptions were made by the team that the nursing home proprietors were taking the actions recommended. Across the health boards and the Eastern Regional Health Authority there is evidence that the work of the inspection teams was not being relayed directly to people who referred clients to the nursing home. Those are some of the issues we have taken on board. It is no longer possible for one arm of the HSE to secure services in a nursing home without first consulting the inspection team to ensure there are no problems. Clients are not admitted to a nursing home if issues are outstanding.

Deputy Connolly spoke about inspections being announced. I agree that inspections which are announced may become mere book exercises. Matters may appear on the surface to be acceptable while that may not be the case. My team and I are satisfied that no inspections are now announced. All inspections are unannounced. I agree with the need to include residents and relatives in the process. It was a weakness of the earlier process that relatives, by and large, were not included, unless further to a complaint. Mr. Paschal Moynihan learned from his work throughout the country that there was a leaning towards noting technical breaches rather than failures of care and welfare. We have taken steps to ensure this is no longer the case.

I accept Deputy Twomey's observation that inspection teams do not always enter nursing homes as teams. However, the medical, nursing and environmental health aspects of a nursing home inspection must be completed before the report is complete. The completion of two aspects is not sufficient. In some parts of the country it may not be possible to have all three inspectors available at the same time. In our future system we will have dedicated teams and all three people will be available. I cannot understate the fact that some of the specialism required, particularly the medical officer specialism, is quite scarce. When such a specialism is committed to the nursing home sector it must be taken away from somewhere else. It is a significant challenge to the HSE to ensure sufficient medical input to carry out our statutory responsibilities appropriately.

Senator Browne asked about the number of visits by inspection teams. Every nursing home had two statutory inspections in 2005 and will have had two inspections by the end of this year. Many nursing homes have had many more than this. Since the establishment of the HSE we have achieved two statutory inspections per year, even with the minimal teams in place in some areas.

Senator Browne also asked if Ministers were briefed on this issue. The briefing of Ministers is a matter for the Department of Health and Children. The Department was briefed often by many of the former boards on the limitations in the regulation and legislation. This is because every time the HSE went to court on a serious basis, it experienced significant difficulties in imposing a suspension. The Rostrevor case was a significant one.

Senator Browne has asked about circumstances in which a resident has no family. I will ask Ms Culliton to speak on such circumstances as they relate very much to advocacy towards which we are trying to move.

Ms Mary Culliton

In our wide consultation on the new complaints policy with consumers, patients and patients' advocacy groups, it emerged that people were sometimes afraid to make a complaint whether in respect of a nursing home or more generally. We are dealing with the problem by working with advocacy group representatives like Sheila O'Connor from Patient Focus and others from Age Action Ireland, the Irish Patients Association and the Irish Hospice Foundation to find a way to provide advocacy for people who cannot comment or complain personally. We are working very hard on the matter and meet the groups on an ongoing basis.

In the new complaints policy and procedures, we have created a comprehensive way to deal with complaints. The policy has been signed off by the senior management team of the HSE and rolled out nationally. Stakeholders were consulted widely on it.

Mr. Noel Mulvihill is the local health manager in the Dublin north central area and has oversight of the dedicated nursing home team for the Dublin north east area. He will explain to members the chain of responsibility and the way in which matters are dealt with currently.

Mr. Noel Mulvihill

It is important to outline the area of responsibility in question. In our new structure I am the lead local health manager for older persons in Dublin north east. The three former community care areas in the northern area and the three in the former north east are within my remit. We have put together a full-time, dedicated inspectorate team which is led by a manager who reports to me on a daily basis. Including the manager, the inspectorate has nine staff, the majority of whom are full-time nurse inspectors. They work in each area with the appropriate area medical staff and environmental health officers. Generally, an inspection is carried out by two inspectors together and where, appropriate, a medical person and, or, environmental health officer. Currently, an inspection takes between two and two and a half days to carry out, although it can take up to three days in some of our areas. A report is compiled and brought back to a team, the chairman of which will be one of the inspectors. The report is compiled in conjunction with the manager before being passed to me. That is the line of responsibility.

I addressed with Professor O'Neill the local recommendation in his report that we advise all clients in nursing homes which have been unsuccessful in a tendering process. His assumption that a nursing home which was unsuccessful in a tendering process was unsuitable to provide care and welfare to clients was unreasonable. In those instances, the tender was for high dependency care. I was advised by local health managers in those areas and satisfied that those nursing homes had no specific issues arising in nursing home inspection reports. That is a different issue from whether they were suitable to meet the requirements of a specific tendering process. I am satisfied we dealt with that issue appropriately. When I advised Professor O'Neill to that effect, he acknowledged my advice and no further issue arose.

On the suggestion that political advisers are involved in the chain of command, we all live in the real world where people make demands of us. People might shout and scream at us from many different quarters at different times but that does not mean they have any place in the chain of command. The chain of command lies within the organisational structure and political advisers or any other advisers have no role in it. I am quite satisfied about this.

I presume Mr. Browne will write to the Minister requesting that her political advisers stay out of the HSE's affairs.

I will allow Deputy Twomey to ask a supplementary question later. In all fairness to other members, they too are entitled to an opportunity to ask questions.

It is not a function of mine to write to the Minister to request that she ask her advisers to stay out of HSE affairs. All members of my team are clear on the requirement to treat any approach of advisers with due courtesy. That is how we would treat any political adviser, member of the Opposition or Member of the Oireachtas. That would be the normal process.

What about St. Ita's?

Please allow Mr. Browne to respond to the questions asked. I will permit the Senator to ask a supplementary question when the other four members offering have asked their questions.

Senator Browne asked about St. Ita's. The transfer of clients from St. Ita's involved a detailed process that is well documented. The evidence from that documentation is that the transfer was completed using best practice, namely, people identified a nursing home, the proprietors from that nursing home and nurse manager came to St. Ita's to assess them, they were considered suitable by Leas Cross and Portrane and were then transferred three or four at a time. The option was available to the consultant in charge to readmit clients at any time to Portrane and that option was exercised in several cases. It is clear to me at this point that the addition of that number of high dependency clients to the Leas Cross nursing home was a factor in tipping the balance in terms of the capacity of that nursing home to cater for the total number of people resident there. I cannot say anything other than that the level of supervision in the nursing home was clearly not adequate. The relationship between the nursing home inspection team and the people contracting care was not formalised. Had it been, it would have been necessary to take action earlier. In hindsight, the belief of the inspectorate at the time that the action taken was sufficient was clearly misplaced.

The O'Neill report on Leas Cross stated that the death rate from the time from admission of a client to death was much higher in the case of those clients who transferred from Portrane. We have examined the position of similar clients during the same period in other long-stay State institutions. The death rates are not significantly higher for Leas Cross. These were high dependency clients who were being nursed at the time in a very substandard setting within Portrane. The staff at Portrane believed the facility to which the clients were being transferred was an appropriate setting. Clearly, that judgment was misplaced. Members may wish to remind me of any questions I have not yet answered.

The three members who have asked questions may ask supplementary questions following the next tranche of questions from Deputies Neville, McManus and Gormley and Senator Feeney.

I will be brief as I have only one issue to raise, namely, that the difficulties being experienced were well known to the Department of Health and Children for some time. Following its establishment, the Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, commissioned a barrister, Ms Ita Mangan, to undertake research regarding older people in long-stay care. It stated this was a fine and frightening piece of work in which were made most of the points subsequently made effectively and dramatically on the "Prime Time" programme on Leas Cross. The report was published and forwarded to the Department of Health and Children. According to the human rights commissioner, its response was perfunctory and dismissive. He further stated: "It gave us no pleasure when the Leas Cross programme dominated public interest to point out that we had warned the Department and the public much earlier of the defects in current practice and of what needed to be done". The Department was well aware of the situation from the IHRC report. Why was this warning ignored and dismissed?

I do not intend to ask questions raised by other members; I want to take a slightly different approach. It appears we need to root out bad practice in poor nursing homes and maintain best practice in good nursing homes. Recent events have undermined confidence in both.

The Government has been grossly negligent in not bringing forth legislation. It is clear — I ask the HSE to comment on this — that the policy since 1997 has been over-reliance on the private nursing home sector, with a significant shift towards high dependency patients being pushed out of hospital into nursing homes that were either not able to or did not want to be involved in dealing with the additional demands of such patients. Without legislation, this problem will persist. We are not out of the woods in this regard and I am deeply concerned. Professor Drumm and the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, have made it clear that it will continue. Professor Drumm said he wanted 1,000 additional beds by June. It is obvious that most of these beds will be provided in private nursing homes. Some 500 community beds were to be provided in a centre in Finglas formerly used by asylum seekers but will not now be provided. There has been a significant reduction in the number of community nursing beds. What is happening? More and more sick people are going into private nursing homes, with no regulatory framework in place to protect them. This applies to clients of good and poor nursing homes.

What has been outlined is a stop-gap system, namely, standardisation in an area where legislation is vague. My anecdotal evidence is that there is no standardisation which will be impossible to provide for. There appears to be a variation in approach. In one case, residents were disregarded in one inspection, while there was great interest in where wheelchairs were stored. Such an approach may result from a lack of training but it does not get to the core of the issue, namely, how residents are being cared for.

There is the issue of the publication of information. In my area two nursing homes were subject to inspection, but not one inspection report was published on the Internet by the HSE on any nursing home in County Wicklow. I am all for transparency and part and parcel of new legislation will be to provide it. Perhaps Mr. Browne will comment on the fact that one nursing home learned of what was going on from RTE, which indicates that information was sent by the HSE to the station, whether officially or otherwise. It may have been a case of spin-doctoring whereby the HSE wished to prove it was doing something rather than nothing. I have no idea, but it seems clear that there was an agenda driving the provision of information to demonstrate that something was happening. That is not the way to ensure people have confidence in the system. I find it unnerving in the context of ensuring that a workable system is in place.

Will Mr. Browne comment also on a fundamental flaw whereby the same body is carrying out the inspections which commissions beds? That must create its own conflict. Inspectors who investigated one nursing home were also checking to see if a bed was available for a respite case. That cannot work.

Mr. Browne speaks about dedicated teams, which is a very important approach to take, but how can we have such teams when we have such a great shortage of public health doctors? I asked a parliamentary question on the matter and discovered that there are now more than 100 vacancies. This is the result of a deal struck which led to promotions and subsequently to vacancies that have not been filled. How can the HSE provide dedicated teams when a doctor and nurse can be required at any moment to attend to an emergency such as a food poisoning or TB outbreak? It does not sound to me like a professional way to provide an inspection system. I do not necessarily criticise anybody, but merely point out a fundamental flaw in the system which cannot be addressed in the current lacuna in which the HSE operates.

I appreciate that many questions have been asked, but I have a last one on the transfer of psychiatric patients. The vast majority of residents of one nursing home are psychiatric patients. While those residents who are still in contract beds from the HSE have had their fees topped up on foot of improvements which allow for inflation, the occupancy of psychiatric patients has not been subject to an increase. There is a cost to be considered. If, as the Government insists, we must be overly reliant on the private nursing home sector, with which policy I disagree, we must have systems in place that ensure the provision of an appropriate level of funding. However, I am not the one who is in power. We know there are problems with subventions, but can the witnesses tell the committee if there are problems with ensuring that when somebody is placed by the State out of a system in which proper inspection is carried out by the Inspector of Mental Hospitals and placed in a private nursing home which is run for profit, he or she is protected and supported through the provision of proper resources? It concerns me and I do not think we are out of the woods.

I must attend another meeting, but I will be in a position to follow this session on the monitors.

When the HSE was established, I said one of its main functions would be to act as a mudguard for the Minister. This episode is proof of that. The Minister who bears ultimate responsibility for this has been absent, as have the Ministers of State.

Will Mr. Browne and his team state whether it is the case that if "Prime Time" had not shown its programme, we would still not know about the appalling conditions at Leas Cross? Is it not the case that Mr. Browne and the HSE knew about nursing homes at which conditions were appalling? Is it not the case that whistleblowers contacted the health boards and, latterly, the HSE to communicate exactly what was happening at certain nursing homes and that the HSE failed to act? As I outlined to the Dáil, I was contacted by a nurse who outlined appalling conditions in a nursing home. She said she told the relevant health board but nothing was done. Does the HSE have a record of whistleblowers who contacted it and do its representatives agree that we need whistleblower legislation to protect people who fear for their jobs if they reveal certain practices?

Mr. Browne said inspectors had the facility to inspect on weekends and at night. Will he tell the committee how many inspections have taken place at these times, which are the crucial periods during which one is likely to see the abuses that have taken place? In his presentation, Mr. Browne said a medical inspection must also take place. According to the document before me, a medical officer has the facility to examine patients if appropriate. Which is the case? Does a medical inspector have to examine patients or does he or she carry out an examination only if he or she deems it appropriate to do so? In how many cases has a full medical examination taken place? If we had more rigorous inspections, we would probably get to the bottom of much of the abuse which has taken place.

Part of the problem is the "for profit" motive. Does Mr. Browne agree that many nursing homes cut corners in the food and care they provide? Does he agree that part of the problem is that many of the people involved seek only to make as much money as possible from nursing homes? These owners are business people who ought not to be in the caring profession. We want people who care about patients. Mr. Browne said that what is required is a proper definition of "sufficient care". While it is a difficult issue, will Mr. Browne tell the committee what constitutes sufficient care as far as he is concerned?

I apologise for arriving a little late. I was at another meeting.

Mr. Browne stated in his report that 666 inspections were carried out between January and October and that inspections may take place at night or weekends. Did any of those 666 inspections take place at night? What period is defined as "night"? Mr. Browne said in relation to night staffing at nursing homes that while legislation requires it to be "adequate", it does not define "adequate staffing". Does he have a view on what constitutes an adequate staffing provision?

Mr. Browne has covered the matter of inspection teams, but does he have an opinion on lay people, be it family members or others, who wish to visit nursing homes to represent the public interest? He said the HSE had suspended admissions to seven nursing homes in the eastern region. When admissions are suspended, do patients continue to reside in the homes? What monitoring of patient safety takes place? I have read about what takes place during nursing home inspections. While I favour unannounced inspections, there is a draw-back in that elderly people may be left on their own while the inspection is being carried out and the HSE may not get the real picture. If elderly persons were accompanied by a relative, perhaps the inspectors could speak to that relative who may feel free to talk about what is going on out of earshot of the elderly family member. I agree with Deputy Connolly that many are afraid to speak about what is happening out of fear that they nowhere else to go. They would rather put up with whatever wrongs were being done to them than complain. Such persons are vulnerable.

Mr. Browne stated a nursing home was obliged to display its conditions of acceptance at the entrance to the home. Is this done? Like Deputy McManus, I want to know if these conditions are made public; if so, where and when and, if not, why not? Is "obliged" a strong enough word? What are the consequences of not doing so?

It is interesting to note what inspection teams do, namely, examine nursing records, patient details, drug records, complaints and so on. What is the role of the environmental officer? On radio a couple of weeks ago I heard a lady who was upset about her elderly father who was in a room which smelled of sewage and who, when she complained, was told by staff they could not smell anything. Also, the room would be sprayed with air freshener when she was due to visit her father. Upon investigation, her brother discovered an open sewer at the back of the nursing home. I have read nothing which tells me the environmental officer inspects buildings and outhouses to make sure everything is all right, although I am sure that is what happens.

Mr. Browne has stated he has forwarded a copy of the O'Neill report to the Garda Síochána, An Bord Altranais and the Medical Council. In forwarding a copy of the report to An Bord Altranais and the Medical Council, is the HSE making a formal complaint? If not, on what basis was it sent a copy of the report?

Before Mr. Browne replies, I have two questions that I would like to put to him. Have admissions to any other nursing home been suspended during the tenure of the HSE, even temporarily? Mr. Mulvihill has stated the average inspection takes about three days to complete. Does this apply countrywide or to his area only? On the publication of the names of nursing homes to which admissions have been suspended, it has been stated a notice will be placed in the hall of each nursing home and that patients, current and potential, will be so advised. Has this been done, or is it something the HSE hopes to do? I wonder also about the advisability of informing current and potential residents without first informing their families. Obviously, some residents are at various stages of dementia and may not be able to understand this.

Deputy Feeney identified one of the more critical issues for the HSE. It is related to a matter raised by the Vice Chairman. The sanctions available to the HSE under the current regulations are limited. In fact, they are almost absent. Until we arrived at the point we have reached, however appropriate or otherwise is the policy position on directly purchasing large numbers of beds from the private sector, we had virtually no leverage with the private nursing home sector. Our capacity to suspend HSE admissions is impacting on the profit margins of private businesses. This leverage which impacts on the earning capacity of a nursing home will assist us in progressing the matter.

We require a nursing home to advertise the fact that there are conditions attached to its admissions. We pursue this requirement with it and if it is found to be non-compliant, we enter into the legal process which, as I explained, is lengthy and cumbersome. It is important to state that our experience since 1993, following implementation of the legislation, has been that the majority of nursing home owners are wholly compliant with the requirements stipulated by the nursing home inspection teams. There is no doubt that a number are not complaint and often take many steps to avoid acting on recommendations. That answers some of the points raised by Deputies McManus and Gormley.

We have the facility to inspect at weekends and at night. I cannot answer the question of how many inspections take place at these times. I do not have that information available to me, although I can obtain it for the committee. This option is normally exercised in follow-up inspections where issues have been identified or when complaints have been made. We record all complaints received and during my watch all have been followed up. I would be supportive of the whistleblowers charter and any process which would allow issues of concern to be raised.

By way of information, four of us are nurses by profession and we have all managed care of the elderly institutions for various periods. MsCulliton is a speech and language therapist. We have a real understanding of the needs of residents in such institutions. We also understand that in any contract of care between two individuals such care is only as good as the individual on duty at a particular time. It is a huge challenge to have in place standards that will always be upheld. However, they do slip, sometimes significantly, and there is often abuse and neglect. It is of critical importance that relatives, care and nursing staff, as well as others believe that when they raise their voices, the organisation will listen and respond accordingly. This is the only organisation for which I want to be responsible. We will, through our role as mangers of units, impose that system rigidly inasmuch as is possible.

I agree with Deputy McManus that the current situation is undermining public confidence in the nursing home sector. The HSE is obliged to take charge of the matter as quickly and as speedily as possible and to use whatever resources it has available to it to ensure inspections are the best they can be. We have a standardised inspection process and are obliged to ensure consistency in what happens within it. That is a significant challenge for us also in the context of the point regarding medical input. The establishment of dedicated teams we will increase our capacity to employ doctors. Trying to find dedicated doctors for inspections is an enormous challenge in particular parts of the country. The dedicated teams will include people who want to do this type work and are highly trained in that regard.

Deputy Gormley asked about medical officers. I have said that a medical officer must participate in an inspection. However, he or she is not required to examine individual clients but is permitted by way of regulations to do so if he or she so wishes. It is up to the medical officer to decide whether examination of a client is necessary. A medical officer may decide to examine a client pursuant to a complaint.

Deputy Gormley also said many nursing homes cut corners and that their main motive is profit. That statement stands on its own. I would not necessarily challenge it as it is true in many instances. However, I also know for a fact — Mr. Mulvihill, Mr. Moynihan and others will be aware of this — that many nursing home proprietors provide a high standard of quality care. They are genuinely vocationally driven to deliver quality care and go out of their way to ensure they do so. The challenge to us is to provide the public with reassurance in regard to one home over another.

On the definition of sufficient care, the work undertaken by Mr. Moynihan and his group, the Department and Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, should go a long way towards providing an objective definition of what is sufficient care. Everything is subjective. Much depends on what a person sees with his or her own eyes.

As regards what is sufficient staffing, the same issue arises. Sufficient staffing is dependent on the dependency of clients, the size and shape of the nursing home, the level of management and so on. It is difficult to be definite on this point. Current legislation and regulation do not address this issue. I would expect any new regulations to deal with this matter in a much more objective way. We could, for example, introduce an objective risk assessment tool. The capacity exists for the introduction of objective tools for manpower planning and resource allocation. We now have an opportunity to build this into regulation. That this is not currently provided for is a fundamental flaw. We are as good as regulation permits us to be; there is no doubt about this.

Was this information disseminated by the HSE? That is an important point.

The HSE had no intention — I have been trying to find out how this happened — of putting into the public domain information that had not been made available to the nursing home proprietor. We are trying to identify what happened. There is a process in place and I would like that process to be followed.

On a point of order, Deputy Neville's question was not answered. In fairness to him, the question should be answered.

I thought the question asked by Deputy Neville was more relevant to the Department of Health and Children. He suggested the Department was perfunctory and dismissive in its response. I cannot answer for the Department.

Was the HSE aware of that report?

I was not aware of it. I have been involved, as have some of my colleagues, with the elderly care sector for many years. The 1988 report, The Years Ahead, the last policy document for older person care contained 300 or 400 recommendations. The only recommendation to achieve a legislative base was the one relating to nursing home inspections. Everything else was left to chance, the impact of which was a flow of resources towards the high dependence or residential end of the continuum. The net effect was a reduction in the resources available to maintain people in their own homes and communities. By virtue of that legislative decision, resources have been sucked to that end of the continuum and we are experiencing difficulty in moving back down. Obviously, that end of the continuum is now the most expensive. From my experience in the past 15 or 20 years, what has happened in the past two years has been a first in investing significantly to move resources back down the continuum and make it possible for people to move from hospital to home without having to go through the nursing home sector. Many complex issues relating to policy, legislation and funding and a mixed bag in terms of how services were delivered by the former boards, to some extent, led us to where we are.

Mr. Browne has stated the O'Neill report has been referred to the Garda Síochána. There is almost an insinuation that the Health Service Executive has absolved itself. Will it be investigated in regard to its role in the Leas Cross saga?

Will Mr. Browne reassure the public and patients that their complaints will be treated confidentially and that they will not be identified? Will he reassure them that if they make a complaint, the matter will be followed up to ensure they have not been persecuted for having made such a complaint, as often happens? He also stated much of the legislation by which the HSE was guided was weak. We can enact all the legislation we like but it is only through good policing that the matter will be addressed. I agree with Mr. Browne that responsibility for patients rests with the individuals on duty. However, I do not believe staff are concerned about what legislation governs them on a particular day. I am not convinced that further legislation will cure the problem, although it may go some way towards helping to address the issue.

Deputy Gormley and others referred to greed. Mr. Browne's response was that the HSE could withdraw funding from poorly run nursing homes. I presume he is speaking of the HSE not subventing patients in poorly run nursing homes, thereby starving them out of existence.

Reference was made to dependency levels, the nub of the problem in many nursing homes, given that every patient requires a particular level of care. An ambulant patient will not require the same level of care as a semi-ambulant patient or somebody who is bedridden. The nub of the issue is that relatives are passing on to nursing homes high dependency patients who require one-to-one nursing care. That level of staffing cannot be provided for on a €700 per person per week budget. We cannot wait for legislation to determine staff-patient ratios and dependency levels. There is on an onus on the HSE to address this issue immediately. The staff-patient ratio is an issue for all nursing homes. There is no point in saying there is one nurse for every ten patients. One nurse could be appointed to care for ten ambulant patients, while another could be required to care for ten semi-ambulant or bedridden patients, which is an entirely different matter. This issue must be grappled with immediately.

Another issue of concern is the number of psychiatric patients who have moved from the psychiatric services. These patients also have psychological needs. Will the HSE reassure us that their psychiatric and psychological needs are being met, as they are equally as important as their physical needs? I have been told by staff in a particular psychiatric hospital that a patient who had been moved to a nursing home had literally pined until death. In another case, a psychiatric patient had been moved to a nursing home in Northern Ireland during his final few months on earth. That would not be good practice anywhere. While it might not be fancy to say someone should be nursed in his or her final days in a psycho-geriatric ward, it can in many cases be a better environment for a patient. The person is more familiar with the staff and the ward may have been their home for some time. It is almost like being nursed at home for the people concerned. The notion of moving a person to a different place for his or her last few days when their needs have changed and then to assert that they are not psychiatric patients is morally wrong. The last psycho-geriatric patients in psychiatric hospitals are being used as financial fodder for some of these nursing homes.

The representatives are public servants but public confidence in the HSE is in the gutter at this time. There is no point adopting the mentality "that was then and this is now". If the HSE wishes to advocate seriously on behalf of patients, its representatives must be much stronger in their statements. If they cannot do their job properly, they should make that clear to the people. Mr. Browne's assertion that his only way to insist on standards in nursing homes is to hit the bottom line of the bad ones is unacceptable. I have a five-year old letter, provided to Deputy O'Dowd under freedom of information, which refers to nursing home inspections where significant breaches of the regulations were noted. Some of the nursing homes on the list are still operating. If Mr. Browne has one hand tied behind his back, he should come out and say so. He should explain that he cannot do his job in the absence of legislation and stop saying things which are untrue. He should stop saying the HSE is moving to take action. The executive has been established for two years and should have taken action by now rather than moving to do so. It should not be waiting for the Opposition and the media to expose the concerns we are talking about here today.

It took the HSE two months to establish the working group on nursing homes after the exposure of Leas Cross on "Prime Time". It took 12 months for the group to report and 18 months for Mr. Browne to say he had a robust inspection regime. The website on which the inspection reports are being released gives the example of a nursing home in County Kerry. According to website, the inspection report of 25 July approved the home's request to increase its registration of residents from 57 to 59, which approval came immediately before the inspection team expressed concerns at insufficient staffing levels, especially at evenings and night, given the number of residents in the home. The inspection team recommended specifically that more staff should be rostered for evenings and nights and said the matter had previously been brought to the attention of the nurses in charge and the proprietors. The HSE's inspection regime as revealed on its website demonstrates that the necessary connection does not exist between inspection teams and those certifying nursing homes. A nursing home sought to increase its number of residents at a time when inspection reports said not enough staff were on duty in the evenings and at night. That is what is going wrong.

The delegates indicated that a new comprehensive complaints policy had recently been signed off. Did this signing off take place days or weeks ago? The Minister must sign off on the policy, but she had not done so when last I asked her about the matter. It is not a question of months, but simply days or weeks.

There is a serious problem and we cannot bury our heads in the sand and claim it was all in the past. What was happening in the past continues to cause the problems we face. There is no current protection for elderly people. The HSE is the largest organisation that can advocate on behalf of patients. The Opposition and media can only do so much. There is no social services inspectorate and no HIQA provision. Fine Gael and the Labour Party called for a patient safety authority to cover the matters the delegates have raised such as advocacy, whistleblowers, standards and accreditation. The HSE issued a press release the day after we announced we would have a press conference on a patient safety authority to agree with the objective. This is the sort of disjointed thinking that worries people about the HSE's claims that it seeks to protect people. Does Mr. Browne believe we need a patient safety authority and disagree with the Minister who considers HIQA to be enough to protect patients? Does he believe we should have a proper advocacy service in the health services in light of the planned discussions on 11 December with Age Action Ireland and other organisations representing the elderly? Are these discussions taking place in the context of a genuine concern about advocacy, or are they a mere sop to current events?

The HSE representatives are public servants and must stop acting like they are trying to fool the general public. If they genuinely believe in what they are saying, they should give the general public an opportunity to see this. Right now we have lost a great deal of confidence in the HSE. We do not see these proposals as reforms but as a species of the same form of cover up, nonsense and disregard for elderly patients which we have seen before. When the HSE's delegates attend the committee to speak on these matters, they should be far more honest about what is going wrong. There are significant problems and we should be told what they are. If we are not, the HSE will be seen as merely another arm of government.

Mr. Browne has made the point that there are 436 private nursing homes. It is a small group about which people are worried. It is important to avoid losing the run of ourselves, scare-mongering and frightening elderly patients. I am familiar with State-run nursing homes which provide an excellent service for people who cannot afford or get into private nursing homes.

I understand Mr. Browne does not have figures for night inspections. I would like him to provide them for the committee after he checks them with his office. I would also like him to tell me at what time of night inspections begin. Many of the problems we have seen occur at night due to lack of staff or because patients are difficult during these hours.

Has the HSE made formal complaints to the regulatory bodies, An Bord Altranais and the Medical Council, the main job of which is to protect the public interest, or has it been left to them to consider the report and decide if any of their members have issues to answer? If the report has been sent to the Garda, the HSE must be concerned. If it is concerned about nursing or medical staff, should it not have made a formal complaint to the bodies mentioned rather than leave it to them to address the issue on their own initiative?

I asked if admissions to nursing homes in other parts of the country had been suspended, temporarily or indefinitely, since the establishment of the HSE.

I also asked if the average length of inspections of three days was applicable nationally.

It depends on the size of the nursing home involved and the level of dependency of clients. There are many variables. The standard to which we are moving with dedicated teams is three days, the period required for a comprehensive inspection.

We have tried to be very clear from the beginning. I have not attempted to mislead anyone or understate a case. The HSE must work with the tools available to it. Those currently available do not match the functions we are required to perform. While we are waiting for the appropriate tools to be provided, we will ensure we bring all available resources to bear on the issue. We place a very high value on the safety and well-being of clients in our own and other institutions which deliver care.

I do not know if the HIQA is enough because it is not in place. If it functions in the way the heads of the Bill suggest, it may not be necessary to put anything else in place. If it delivers on the ISSI function, it should be sufficiently strong to address the issues of patient safety and well-being.

Ms Culliton will respond on our complaints policy.

Ms Culliton

Deputy Connolly asked about confidentiality. People can be assured that their complaints will be treated in a confidential manner. The HSE will have designated complaints officers. It is obvious that issues of fair play arise in this regard. If a complaint is made against a person, it is obvious that the person concerned has to have an opportunity to respond to it. I would like to make that clear.

I hope I did not mislead Deputy Twomey about HSE policy. When the HSE is managing complaints, it takes its lead from Part 9 of the Health Act 2004. It has prepared a policy, based not just on the regulations but also on international best practice. It will be prepared when the regulations are signed, which I expect will happen shortly. The HSE wants to move beyond the regulations by applying best practice to the management of complaints. When I told Deputy Twomey that it had signed off on policy, I meant that it had engaged with everybody — consumer groups, patients, staff and staff representatives and management — to try to be ready for the signing of the regulations. It needs to have training systems in place for complaints managers and review officers, as stated in the regulations. The review officers will be independent of the line function — they will be based within the office of the chief executive officer, which is where I work. When I spoke about signing off on policy, I meant that the HSE was ready to deliver on the regulations when they were signed.

Is Ms Culliton saying the HSE has not yet received regulations from the Minister in respect of Part 9?

Ms Culliton

The regulations have not yet been signed.

Mr. Browne mentioned that the HSE did not have the tools to do its job. Will he outline what he feels it does not have to enable it to do its job?

The fundamental issue for the HSE is that it should not be doing this job at all. It should be done by an independent inspectorate. Deputy McManus made the point that the HSE was placing people in nursing homes, purchasing the services of nursing homes and regulating nursing homes. The HSE is in an invidious and untenable position. We know that the first real function of the independent inspectorate will be provided for in the health information and quality authority Bill. In the meantime, the regulations do not offer the HSE sufficient capacity to impose sanctions. That is the ultimate issue for it. As I said, the culture that has developed has been one of working with nursing homes, rather than imposing sanctions on them. That approach will always work in the 80% of cases in which people are willing to work with the HSE. It does not work in a certain percentage of cases. In such cases, the HSE needs the extra bit of clout not currently available to it.

That is——

Will the HSE delegation deal with the supplementary questions which have already been asked before further supplementary questions are asked? I have to go to another meeting.

I will answer the Senator's question. I have made formal complaints to An Bord Altranais and the Medical Council. When I met the Garda Commissioner following the broadcast of the "Prime Time" programme, we agreed that the Leas Cross report would be submitted to the Garda after it was completed. We also agreed that it would be a matter for the Garda to decide whether further action such as a criminal prosecution was needed. As I said, the Commissioner has passed the report on to the national criminal investigation unit to follow it up.

Formal complaints about named people.

I thank Mr. Browne.

I would like to ask a final question about the current situation to reassure the general public. If the HSE has serious worries about a nursing home on foot of an inspection, is it not open to it to go to the District Court to apply for a temporary injunction immediately?

The District Court will not grant us such an injunction. It will not allow us to do what we want to do. When the former South Western Area Health Board tried to do this, its application was turned down by a judge in the High Court. That power is not available to us.

The HSE does not have that power.

The power that is available to the HSE is to seek to put in a manager.

Management, yes.

In which there are many inherent risks involved. The co-operation of the nursing home proprietor is required in that regard. The HSE has worked with such co-operation in a number of areas. If the proprietor of Leas Cross nursing home had not co-operated with it, it would have taken much longer to take charge of the nursing home. The HSE is highly constrained by the current legislation in taking immediate action.

Do I understand correctly that admissions to no other nursing home have been suspended?

I will confirm that. Mr. Paschal Moynihan has passed me a note. A number of other nursing homes have been deregistered or taken off the register in recent years.

What does that mean?

It means they have gone completely out of business.

They are closed.

Yes, their registration was not renewed. That is the only option. After nursing homes have been registered for three years, there is the option of re-registering them. It was decided not to re-register the nursing homes in question.

They cannot take in any patients. Is that right?

They cannot be in business as a nursing home.

That has happened.

It has. The number of nursing homes is a variable feast — there are 436 this year, whereas there were 441 last year. A number were not re-registered. Others went out of business voluntarily.

Are the names of the homes which have closed available to the public?

The HSE needs to become more strongly involved in advocacy. It should state what is holding it back. It has been established for two years. The problems under discussion have been ongoing for at least five or six years. The HSE is in the process of looking for 900 nursing home places in the private sector. If what it states is right, difficulties will be encountered in working with 20% of those places. Therefore, 180 people will be placed in beds in such homes. The HSE has a duty to speak much more strongly about the lack of legislation, if that is the core problem. It should not talk about the problem as if it was totally separate from its job and responsibilities. I hope nobody is scapegoated when the Garda Síochána reads the report, because it goes to the highest level.

I thank the HSE delegation for coming to the meeting and making such a comprehensive and informative presentation. I presume its members will be available to attend a further meeting of the committee if necessary.

Absolutely.

I thank the delegates.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.35 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23 November 2006.
Barr
Roinn