A Health Information and Quality Authority inspection of foster care services in the Cavan-Monaghan area has identified two "significant" risks in relation to reviewing foster carers and supervising and supporting them.
The management and investigation of specific concerns about foster carers was not sufficiently robust.
There were delays of 12-24 months in assessing foster carers although the assessments themselves were of good quality.
There were delays in receiving some specialist services and difficulties planning aftercare for children with disabilities.
Assurances regarding the psychological well-being of two children had to be sought from the area manager by inspectors.
A number of cases showed children waiting 17 months for psychology services through the primary care system.
Of 26 standards assessed, six standards were met, 18 standards required improvement and two areas of significant risk were highlighted.
Good practice was found in a number of areas and some elements of the service were delivered in an effective manner.
All children in care had a social worker and care plan and in general were visited in line with regulations.
Children were cared for with affection and their welfare promoted but the matching process was not robust.
While the rights of children were generally respected and promoted, they were not aware of how to access their personal information and were not fully consulted about decisions affecting their lives.
Complaints were not effectively managed. The service valued diversity but the needs of children with a disability were not consistently addressed through effective multi-disciplinary planning.
The announced inspection by the Health Information and Quality Authority was carried out in June and July over six days.
The services in the area covered 161 children in foster care, 116 foster carer households along with 27 relative and 89 general foster care.
Mixed quality care plans
Elsewhere, an inspection of foster care services in the Galway-Roscommon area has found care plans were of mixed quality and did not always reflect the work undertaken with children and families.
There were also some deficits in the way direct work and visits to children were recorded and reflected for some children.
Some children did not have an allocated social worker and while there were efforts to ensure named staff were in touch with children the service did not meet the regulations.
There were not sufficient carers for the number of placements.
Inspectors found that there were a significant number of large sibling groups received into care and efforts had been made to place these children together.
However, in the absence of suitable placements to meet the needs of the area, not all sibling groups, where their care plan had identified they should be placed together, were placed together.
In other placements more than two unrelated children were placed together which was not in line with the regulations.
