Residents with challenging behaviour at Teach Aisling, Co Mayo were found to have no psychological input for almost three years, an inspection report by the Mental Health Commission (MHC)has found.

An un announced inspection took place on September 3rd 2014.

The report said it was evident to inspectors on the day of inspection that staff were struggling at times to manage very difficult behaviours of residents and required the support of ongoing psychological input for residents which was not available.

“It is unacceptable that residents of the approved centre have no access to psychological input. This was highlighted in the 2013 inspection report,” the report said.

“Inability to fill a vacancy for a psychologist should not result in residents being deprived of an essential service. The service should arrange for ongoing private psychology input if the HSE are unable to provide it. This situation must not continue,” inspectors said.

On the day of inspection there were ten residents at the unit; three females and seven males, while one patient was detained under the Mental Health Act 2001.

The report said the clinical files were in “very good order” but there were a number of medical entries in the clinical files that were “almost completely illegible.”

“As these entries contained important clinical information and management plans, this was of concern,” inspectors noted.

A peer advocate visited the centre regularly and a notice giving information and details of the advocacy service was displayed in the unit.

Inspectors also noted two residents had been referred to a dietician but in both cases the dietician manager said there was no dietician service to adult mental health. Inspectors said this was unsatisfactory as it excluded residents with mental health problems from an essential service.

The Inspectorate said it was keen to highlight improvements and initiatives carried out in the past year and track progress on the implementation of recommendations made in 2013.

“However, the lack of essential psychology services essential for residents of this approved centre, did nothing to aid an empowering approach.” the report said.

In addition to the core inspection process, information was also gathered from service user interviews, staff interviews and photographic evidence collected on the day of the inspection.

All residents had an individual care plan as described in the Regulations.

The template contained a section which documented the residents’ strengths, which was “excellent”.

Where they were able, the residents signed their care plans which were reviewed on a regular basis.

In most cases, the resident was present for the care planning meeting and this was documented with needs, goals, actions and resources clearly outlined.