Central Mental Health hospital ‘unsuitable’ as mental health facility - report

MHC’s inspection finds cell-like bedrooms, antiquated bathrooms, and inadequate signano for CCTV

The HSE’s planning application for a 170 bed National Forensic Mental Health Hospital to replace the CMH is under consideration by An Bord Pleanála, who are scheduled to make a decision in April 7th 2015.
The HSE’s planning application for a 170 bed National Forensic Mental Health Hospital to replace the CMH is under consideration by An Bord Pleanála, who are scheduled to make a decision in April 7th 2015.

The Central Mental Hospital building in Dublin is “ outdated and unsuitable as a mental health facility for the 21st century,” according to a report by the Mental Health Commission.

An announced inspection was carried out on the 19th, 20th and 21st of August 2014.

The HSE’s planning application for a 170 bed National Forensic Mental Health Hospital to replace the CMH is under consideration by An Bord Pleanála, who are scheduled to make a decision in April 7th 2015.

The HSE plans to build the new facility on the grounds of St Ita’s Hospital in Portrane, north County Dublin, near the village of Donabate.

READ MORE

The report said the Central Mental Hospital was constructed in the 19th century and was not well maintained over the years.

Report Findings

The building was totally unsuitable as a modern healthcare facility with small cell-like bedrooms, long corridors and antiquated bathrooms in some areas.

“Bedroom accommodation was extremely unsuitable and was predominantly in small cell-like rooms which had inadequate storage space. Some of the bathrooms were antiquated, one with an open drain,” the report said.

Paint was peeling from the walls in many parts of the building and the nurses’ office in Unit 3 had large chunks of plaster missing from the walls.

Despite the efforts of the cleaning staff, much of the unit was grubby and dusty. The toilet and bathroom in Units B, 2 and 4 were malodorous with, in some cases, damaged or dirty tiles.

The washroom in Unit 4 had an open drain under the sinks and the floor was stained.

The kitchen in Unit 2 had cupboards that were in poor condition and the outside of the bin was very dirty.

In Unit 1, the women’s unit, storage rooms were untidy with resident’s clothes strewn across floors in heaps.

The bedrooms were tiny and cell-like. In one room, the resident would have to climb over her bed to access her wardrobe.

The corridor, where the storage rooms and seclusion rooms were located, was narrow, prison-like and could be frightening for any resident brought to the seclusion rooms.

Inspectors noted staff “had managed to make the dayroom a cheery place and the garden area was very nice.”

Several of the residents and staff members complained of the heating in the building.

Due to its age, it was reported that the heating could not be regulated and was either ‘on’ or ‘off’.

It was notably over-heated on the days of inspection and the radiators were too hot to touch and staff were unable to turn a radiator down or off.

The report said the physical environment at the CMH was not at all in keeping with a modern healthcare facility.

No dentist for residents

All residents, whose clinical files were inspected, showed evidence that a physical examination had been carried out within the previous six months.

The report found there was no longer a dentist attached to the CMH.

Unless a resident had a medical card, they had to pay for any dental care they received. In cases of hardship, it was reported by the General Manager that the hospital paid for the treatment.

“It is hard to imagine how long term residents would have the funds to pay for regular and emergency dental care,” inspectors said.

“The situation where patients without a medical card, in a designated centre under the Criminal Law Insanity Act 2006, have to pay for their own dental care is most unsatisfactory,” they added.

CCTV

The report said the service had recently installed CCTV cameras in the seclusion rooms and two bedrooms in Unit 1 and Unit B.

The monitors for these cameras were mounted in the corridors outside these rooms did not provide adequate privacy for residents in the seclusion rooms or bedrooms.

In addition, there was no signage in or outside the bedrooms to indicate that CCTV cameras were in operation.