CONDITIONS ATTACHED to the registration of private nursing homes by the Health Service Executive will remain in place until the Health Information and Quality Authority (Hiqa) has had an opportunity to inspect the homes itself, the authority has said.
This comes in response to a suggestion at Tullamore District Court last week that Hiqa, which took over responsibility for registration of all nursing homes on July 1st, would register all homes without conditions for three years.
The court was told that a Co Offaly nursing home was withdrawing its appeal against a decision by the HSE to attach conditions to its registration because of the change in the regulations, which saw Hiqa taking over.
James Flanagan, counsel for Upton House Nursing Home in Clara, told Judge Conal Gibbons that the new regulations meant every home “is automatically registered without conditions over the next three years”, so the appeal was being withdrawn.
But, in a statement, Hiqa said that while it did not comment on specific cases, it would not, in its new role, automatically register nursing homes without pre-conditions. “It is our understanding that any pre-condition for registration previously imposed on the nursing home by the HSE will remain in place until it has been inspected by Hiqa,” it said.
“To assist in the commencement of the legal responsibility for the registration and inspection of nursing homes by the Office of the Chief Inspector of Social Services, the HSE has notified the chief inspector of any active concerns relating to nursing homes previously registered with the HSE.
“The chief inspector will review these concerns and the relevant records and will take whatever action is deemed necessary to deal with these issues,” it said.
Details of the conditions which the HSE attached to the registration of the Clara nursing home last March were not revealed in court.
The court sat specially last Thursday to hear the nursing home’s appeal against the decision by the HSE to attach conditions and to rule on an application by the home to have the case heard in camera.
Judge Conal Gibbons ruled that if the appeal had proceeded it would have been “inappropriate, incorrect and unlawful” for it to be held in camera.
