Archived: Mr Dean Oliver Dervan Also known as Geolis Care

Updated 23 April 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 15 and 16 March 2016. We telephoned the registered provider the day before the inspection so there would be someone at the office when we arrived.

The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, the registered provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

As part of the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service and consulted other relevant organisations. This included contacting the Trafford Council safeguarding team, the care commissioners at Trafford Council, Healthwatch Trafford and four healthcare professionals involved with people using the service. We did not receive a response from the safeguarding team and care commissioners were unable to provide any information about the service. The health care professionals involved with people using the service all gave us very positive feedback about Geolis Care; Healthwatch Trafford did not respond.

During our inspection we spoke with the registered provider and three care workers. We also visited three people who used the service in their own homes and spoke with one other person over the telephone. We also spoke with six people’s relatives.

We spent the first day of the inspection at the service’s main office speaking with the registered provider and looking at records. These included three people’s care records, three staff recruitment files, staff training records, various policies and procedures and other documents relating to the management of the service. On the second day of inspection we visited three people who used the service in their own homes and looked at their care documents with their permission.

Updated 23 April 2016

We inspected the care agency called Mr Dean Oliver Dervan (also known as Geolis Care) on 15 and 16 March 2016. As it was a domiciliary care service, we contacted the registered provider the day before the inspection so that there would be someone at the office when we arrived. The service was last inspected in May 2013, when it was found to be compliant in all the areas we looked at.

At the time of our inspection, Geolis Care was providing support to 10 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.

During this inspection we found issues with the way medicines administration had been recorded. Some prescribed medicines were being given by care workers that were not listed on people’s medicine administration records.

We found that the registered manager did not document interviews for new care workers or record how any gaps in their employment history had been explored. Other aspects of recruitment were done properly.

People known or thought to lack mental capacity had not been assessed for their ability to make decisions or give consent to care. The service was therefore not acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

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.

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.

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 and their relatives reported that care workers used personal protective equipment when providing personal care to help prevent the spread of infections.

People told us that they felt safe with the care workers. 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.

People and their relatives told us that care workers were very caring; they told us that care workers went the extra mile to provide people with person-centred care.

Care workers gave examples of how they promoted people’s independence and maintained their privacy and dignity. They could also describe people’s likes, dislikes and preferences.

People and their relatives were involved in developing care plans. People said they received over and above what they had asked for and relatives we spoke with agreed that they did.

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.

The registered provider worked in partnership with healthcare professionals and a local charity for the disabled to provide effective care for the people the service supported.

People, their relatives and staff gave very positive feedback about the registered provider’s management of the service. Care workers enjoyed their jobs; people and their relatives said they would recommend the service to others.