You are here

Geolis Care Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 8 July 2017

We inspected Geolis Care on 31 May and 01 June 2017. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice we would be visiting the office to make sure the appropriate people would be there to assist us with our inspection.

At the time of our inspection, Geolis Care was providing support to four people in the Trafford area. Care workers were supporting the people using the service in a range of ways, including assistance with washing and dressing, social outings, meal preparation and domestic tasks such as cleaning.

The service was not required to have a registered manager as the provider was registered as an individual. This meant he acted as the provider and manager of the service. Registered providers are 'registered persons'.

Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection we found issues with the way medicines administration had been recorded. At this inspection we found medicines were now being recorded safely.

At the last inspection we found that the registered provider did not document interviews for new care workers or record how any gaps in their employment history had been explored. We found these issues had not been fully rectified at this inspection.

At the inspection we found there had been some improvements made in relation to assessing people’s mental capacity and recording people’s medicines safely. However, we have identified continued breaches in relation to recruitment of new staff, training and the undertaking of a quality assurance system was still not being completed.

At the last inspection people known or thought to lack mental capacity had not been assessed for their ability to make decisions or give consent to care. At this inspection we found nobody receiving the service lacked capacity, therefore mental capacity assessments did not need to be completed by the service.

Newly recruited care workers did not receive a full induction and the provision of training for all care workers was poor. In addition, care workers did not receive formal supervision or appraisal.

The registered provider did not monitor, audit or quality assure the service for safety or care quality.

People saw regular care workers and told us that they arrived on time and stayed for the full duration of the time allotted for each care visit.

People told us that they felt safe with the care workers. We noted from the training matrix safeguarding adults training was not provided to staff. However, staff we spoke with could give examples of the different forms of abuse they needed to look out for and said they would report any concerns to the registered provider.

The people receiving support with food shopping and meal preparation gave us positive feedback about this aspect of their care. Those supported by care workers to make appointments with other healthcare professionals were also satisfied with the assistance they received.

None of the people or relatives we spoke with had made a formal complaint. All of the people we spoke with said they felt able to speak directly to the registered provider if they had any problems.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014.

You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 8 July 2017

The service was not always safe.

The registered provider did not document interviews with prospective care workers and did not record how gaps in previous employment were investigated.

Staff had not been recently trained in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. However staff were knowledgeable about recognising the signs of abuse.

People and their relatives said that care workers were reliable. They told us that staff always arrived on time and stayed for the full duration of the time allocated.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 8 July 2017

The service was not always effective.

New care workers did not receive an adequate induction. The provision of training and formal on-going support for all care workers was poor.

Staff were made aware of people�s needs, likes and dislikes and developed effective professional relationships with them.

Consent from people or their relatives was obtained before support and care was provided.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 July 2017

The service was caring.

We received positive feedback from people about how well they were able to build relationships with their care staff.

Staff treated people with respect, were attentive to people's needs and maintained their privacy and dignity.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and the support they received.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 July 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were individualised and person-centred. They contained information on people's likes and dislikes and how they preferred to be supported.

People and their relatives told us that were involved in designing their care pans and were happy that they received the care they had asked for.

People knew how to complain. The service had not received a complaint in the five years it had been established.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 8 July 2017

The service was not always well-led.

There was no quality monitoring system in place. We found continued breaches and robust action had not been taken to address them.

The service worked in partnership with other organisations and healthcare professionals to provide an effective service to people with mental health issues.

People, their relatives, care workers and the healthcare professionals we spoke with all gave positive feedback about the registered provider and how he managed the service.