A report into the University Hospital Limerick emergency department said staff were being asked to work on 130 separate recommendations and that it was a “huge burden” for already over-stretched workers.
It also said too many diagnostic tests were being ordered, partly because of fears about compensation claims, and dozens of patients were waiting more than 28 days for discharge.
A review of the effectiveness of the emergency department said that while it was “admirable” to try and address all the failings at UHL’s A&E, change had to be realistic.
The report, finalised earlier this year, said the ED had been the subject of “many previous inspections and reviews”, with so many recommendations that it was hard to keep track.
It said: “These vary between small simple tasks to much larger and complex tasks. We are concerned that this is a huge burden for an already stretched staff and managerial group.”
The report, prepared by four senior clinicians led by Dame Marianne Griffiths, said it might make more sense to “prioritise the recommendations” and pick out those that were “an inch wide and a mile deep” rather than the reverse.
The authors said they had been “genuinely impressed” by the staff working at UHL especially given the “relentlessness of the challenges faced in ED and the wards”.
Fire doors at one of the country’s main hospitals were left propped open with flammable material while staircases and emergency exits were obstructed by old equipment, bits of broken furniture, and filing cabinets.
A series of damning safety audits at Cork University Hospital found a succession of problems including unsafe storage of chemicals and gases.
The reports were first sought from the hospital nearly a year and a half ago but have only now been released under Freedom of Information laws.
A review of the main hospital building found escape route corridors obstructed by loose furniture, rubbish bins, and cabinets.
In one case, access to fire fighting equipment was compromised because it was right behind a “confidential bin storage”.
Images from the report show how one staircase was blocked by a wheelchair and a trolley while an examination of fire doors also uncovered a litany of problems.
In some cases, the fire doors would not close properly, had broken heat and smoke seals, were wedged open and the wrong fittings had been installed.
A statement from the hospital said: “”The audit referred to was carried out at the request of Cork University Hospital (CUH) management in 2022. CUH takes its responsibility with regards to fire safety very seriously.
“CUH has employed an independent fire consultant to assist in implementing the necessary changes as outlined in this comprehensive audit and to ensure CUH’s compliance in all aspects of Fire and Health and Safety Legislation.”
The daa, which operates Dublin Airport, has been ordered to release documents on the presence of dangerous chemicals on its land.
The airport authority has spent close to a year trying to frustrate requests by Right to Know, local residents, and journalists.
The requests all related to the presence of PFAS – commonly called ‘forever chemicals’ – on its property.
The chemicals leeched into the ground through the past use of fire-fighting foams and are a common issue at airports around the world.
Since requests under Access to Information the Environment (AIE) Regulations first began to be submitted late last year, the daa has been trying to block release of records on the scale of pollution.
The refusal of other documents was appealed by Right to Know to the Commissioner for Environmental Information (CEI).
The CEI found in our favour and sent the case back to the daa for a fresh decision.
However, the daa then decided they would try to impose a €20 fee for release of a handful of documents.
Having already paid €50 for our appeal to the CEI, we did not accept that.
It is important to note that under FOI, the sister system of AIE, fees can not be charged for information that costs less than €100 (five hours of work at €20) to process.
We appealed over the imposition of fees and the CEI again ruled in our favour.
However, the daa is undaunted and just yesterday (3 October) once more demanded payment of a €20 fee for a small number of records on airport charges.
We are aware of other cases where people have been charged small fees and paid them, only to receive records that are so heavily redacted they are meaningless.
We will continue to appeal all cases involving the daa and any attempt to use fees as a way to dodge scrutiny of their activities.
RTÉ was warned that complaints about releasing personal information from TV and radio stars were inevitable if they went ahead with a plan to publish a register of external activities.
The Data Protection Commission also threatened the broadcaster with enforcement in the event they did not protect the personal data of staff and contractors.
In the wake of the RTÉ spending controversy, the broadcaster had wanted to make available a list of when employees had done external work, sometimes involving payment of significant fees.
However, the Data Protection Commission (DPC) put a spanner in the works saying the plans represented a “serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life” under law.
An email to RTÉ in June said: “Please note that the DPC has also been made aware that a number of individuals are very concerned regarding the legal basis for processing [their personal data].
“It is likely that these concerns will be escalated as complaints to the DPC if the processing is to proceed.”
The commission also said they had been in touch with the Department of Tourism and Culture over their concerns that RTÉ had decided “not to implement our recommendation”.
The Data Protection Commission warned too they would not be afraid to use their powers to ensure the protection of individual data protection rights. The list that was eventually published had only anonymised information including that one person had earned over €10,000 outside of RTÉ.
Right to Know has been unsuccessful in a case where we had sought reports arising from visits of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) to accommodation centres for international protection applicants.
The visits took place at a time when the accommodation system was under unrelenting pressure following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
A previous report had been released to us that detailed an “intense oppressive atmosphere” and poor conditions at one centre in Citywest in Dublin.
However, a subsequent request by us for a number of other visit reports was not responded to in time by the IHREC.
At internal review, the human rights agency refused access to eight records on a number of grounds.
The case was appealed to the Information Commissioner with the IHREC relying primarily on Section 30 of the FOI Act in the end.
They argued that the information gathered during their visits was provided on the understanding it would be kept confidential.
It said if future visits took place it would make it less likely people would provide them information in future.
A significant part of the case rested on the public interest with the Information Commissioner accepting the records would “add considerably to the public understanding of the standard of the facilities and services provided to IP [international protection] applicants.”
The investigator added: “Ultimately, these services are provided on behalf of, and funded by, the state. It seems to me that these factors add considerable weight to the public interest in disclosing the records.”
However, the decision found this did not outweigh the IHREC being able to “continue to properly observe conditions” in centres.
They affirmed the decision of the IHREC to withhold the records.
One point that was never raised in the decision was the fact that the responsibility for inspection of direct provision now rests with HIQA.
At the time of this request, such inspections were carried out by contractors under a far less robust system.
It is no longer clear why the IHREC would have cause to visit direct provision centres given HIQA’s long-standing reputation as a highly effective inspection service.
Board members of Ireland’s adoption authority said they were being “exploited” by a government department and being made to work far more hours than they were being paid for.
In a dispute over fees, the Adoption Authority warned government that pressure was becoming so intense that standards would “inevitably” fall as they dealt with ever-more complex cases involving vulnerable kids.
The chair of the Adoption Authority (AAI) Orlaith Traynor wrote as well of board members feeling “entirely undervalued” with a €7,965 annual stipend when a similar role at state broadcaster RTÉ paid €15,000.
Correspondence reveals how officials from the Department of Children and Equality did ask the Department of Public Expenditure to examine whether the payments could be increased.
However, their requests for an increase in the stipend as well as the yearly salary of €134,854 that applies for the chief executive were rejected.
Asked about the correspondence, the Adoption Authority of Ireland confirmed that board fees and the salary for the CEO position remained unchanged.
A spokeswoman said: “Discussions by the Board of the AAI regarding this issue remain ongoing.”
Right to Know has won a case where we had sought information on the number of gardaí convicted of a crime, any disciplinary proceedings against them, and whether they were still part of the police force.
Under the FOI Act, we had sought this data from An Garda, some of the only type of information that is available under the very restrictive information access regime that applies to policing in Ireland.
Even though the data sought is anonymised, An Garda said release was exempt under Section 37 of the FOI Act, which deals with personal information.
It is yet another example of the growing tendency of public bodies to fall back on “personal information” arguments to block release of all sorts of data, some of which was previously available under FOI.
An Garda also claimed the material was exempt under Section 35 of the FOI Act, which deals with information obtained in confidence by public body.
That argument was entirely rejected by the Information Commissioner in his decision, which you can read below.
Twenty eight percent of employees at University Hospital Limerick said they did not believe a friend or relative would get a good standard of care or service if they needed treatment there.
The hospital has been beset by overcrowding and embroiled in controversy this year, including damning failures that were revealed at an inquest into the tragic death of Aoife Johnston in 2022.
A survey carried out at UHL also detailed how staff were demoralised by media coverage and social media discussion of their workplace.
In one question, workers were asked if they would be happy with the standard of care a loved one would get if they needed treatment or admission at the hospital.
Nine percent said they strongly disagreed, 19 percent disagreed, and 20 percent said they were undecided about it.
In another question, UHL staff were asked if they would recommend the hospital as an employer for a friend or family member.
Ten percent said they strongly disagreed, 13 percent disagreed, and 19 percent said they were not sure.
Asked whether overall service provision at UHL was improving, 36 percent said it was deteriorating and 32 percent said it had remained the same over recent times.
The survey was conducted last year as part of biannual research carried out by the hospital on how staff feel.
UHL was approached early last week for a comment on the records but did not respond.
Right to Know has won a case where we sought copies of records on a decision not to proceed with an investigation into Minister Paschal Donohoe.
In early 2023, it emerged that Mr Donohoe had failed to properly record his election expenses when postering was done on his behalf by the businessman Michael Stone.
The minister apologised at the time saying: “I always hold myself to the very highest of professional standards and I profoundly regret that this matter wasn’t dealt with correctly in 2016.
“In light of the information that’s now available to me, I’ve taken the steps to address the issue as comprehensively as I can.”
Mr Donohoe temporarily stepped aside from all functions relating to the Standards in Public Office Commission, which fell under the remit of his department.
SIPO received a complaint which they closed in May 2023 saying the matter was “not of sufficient gravity to warrant investigation”.
At that time, Right to Know sought copies of the documents that underpinned that decision.
SIPO refused to release all the records saying they were exempt under two separate sections of the Freedom of Information Act.
We sought internal review and subsequently appealed to the Information Commissioner, who made his decision in early September.
The decision said: “I do not accept the Commission’s argument that the release of the records at issue in this case might more generally discourage complainants from approaching it in the future.”
The senior investigator later added: “Moreover, in the particular circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that neither the details of the complaint or the complainant’s identity, nor Minister Donohoe’s response to the complaint, were communicated by either party in circumstances which impose an obligation of confidence on the Commission, given the fact that all of this information was placed into the public domain.
“Indeed, in his correspondence with this Office, the complainant expressed his view that his identity should be made available.”
You can read the full decision below. We will post the documents when we get them.
The Defence Forces have said that of 79 troops found guilty of crimes under civil and military law over the past four years, 54 of them remain in service.
Soldiers convicted of offences including misuse of drugs, assault, breaches of COVID-19 restrictions, and robbery or burglary are still serving.
Earlier this year, Taoiseach Simon Harris said that any member of the Defence Forces with a criminal conviction should not remain in the organisation.
It followed outrage over the suspended sentence given to soldier Cathal Crotty following a brutal assault on Natasha O’Brien in Limerick in 2022.
Data released under Freedom of Information laws shows that 63 members of the military had been convicted of a crime under civil law since January 2021.
Many, but not all, appear to have been for more minor offences, according to the figures.
There were 38 convictions for road traffic offences, with 33 of those people still serving in the Defence Forces.
Four soldiers were successfully prosecuted under misuse of drugs laws, but only one of them remains in the military.
There was one case involving theft and fraud and that person is no longer a soldier.
There were eight convictions for assault and three of these people continue to be members of the Defence Forces.
The figures also showed that one person had been prosecuted for possession of an offensive weapon and is still serving.
Two were convicted of burglary or robbery and both remain members while one person who broke pandemic restrictions continues in service.
Five successful prosecutions for public order offences were listed, with three of those involved “still serving” in the military.
The Defence Forces said that two members had been convicted of sexual assault, and one of those has already left the organisation.
They said: “[This other] individual has appealed their conviction, and as per An Tánaiste direction, this individual has been put on special leave pending the outcome of their appeal.”
There was also one conviction for harassment and that person also remains a serving member.
Asked about the records, a spokesman said the Defence Forces had been clear there was “no place for any form of gender-based violence, abuse or any form of inappropriate behaviour” by members whether on or off duty.
He said: “The Defence Forces unequivocally condemns any actions by serving personnel that are contrary to military regulations or that do not reflect our values.
“Any conviction in a civilian court may have implications for the retention and service of members of the Defence Forces, as stipulated in military regulations.”
The spokesman said that in practical terms the Defence Forces always had to await the culmination of any appeals before discharges or other measures could commence.
He added: “Where disciplinary issues occur within the scope of military discipline, it remains a matter for the independent offices of the Director of Military Prosecutions and the Military Judge.”