HIQA report highlights privacy issues, cramped rooms and more at IPAS centre in Waterford

A HIQA inspection of the Atlantic House accommodation centre for international protection applicants in Tramore has revealed mixed experiences among residents.

In the report, released this Friday, May 17, inspectors revealed that substantial improvements are needed in oversight arrangements, staff training, resident consultation, and record-keeping.

Conducted over two days, the inspection involved meetings with a service provider representative, the acting centre manager, and three staff members, along with discussions with 16 residents and reviews of two resident questionnaires.

The centre, housing 78 residents in 45 rooms, is situated close to local services and facilities and includes common areas, a shop, and various amenities.

While the buildings were generally well-maintained, some areas showed signs of wear, including damp damage in a communal bathroom and storage spaces. Noise issues were noted due to uncarpeted staircases.

Bedrooms met minimum space requirements but "space was very limited", especially shared rooms, and there were concerns about privacy in shared en-suite bathrooms.

Residents expressed satisfaction with the cleanliness and availability of bathroom and laundry facilities but noted that laundry detergents were costly due to the points system in place. The centre did not provide catering and operated a points system for food and sundries supplied in the on-site shop, with residents cooking their own meals.

The report highlighted that residents were often unaware of available supports and services. It was evident throughout the inspection that the views of residents had not been actively sought and as such the service was not being operated in a manner that consistently met the needs of all of the people who lived there. It was also said that this could lead to the physical and mental health of some residents to deteriorate. 

While the providers’ approach to support, which promoted independence and active integration into the community, was suitable for most residents, it did not facilitate the identification of residents’ specific needs and therefore could not ensure that all residents received the necessary support.