Geocare Services Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. People gave us mixed views on the staff supporting them, the consensus amongst people was staff were often ‘rushing’ which made them feel staff did not consistently treat them with kindness, compassion and dignity. One person told us, “Carers have a nice personality and talk, but in a rushed way in order to get to the next visit”. Another person also told us, “The carers have a good personality, and I can talk to them fine, except when they are in a rush, it’s restricted a bit”. A relative told us, “The carers try to be caring, but not especially in the right way due to poor communication from the office”. However, staff told us how they treated each person as an individual and empowered them in decision making by giving people choices. The manager also told us care was provided in a personalised way for people and spot checks included observations of how staff interacted with people.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.Some care plans lacked detail about what people could do independently, what mattered most to them, and the qualities they valued in the staff supporting them. This limited the ability of staff to deliver truly individualised care. However, when we spoke to staff, they could demonstrate some understanding of people’s needs when supporting them but told us there could be more detail added to care plans.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.People gave generally positive feedback about staff; however, some told us that language barriers occasionally impacted how they communicated with staff and the staffs’ understanding of their preferences.Care records did not consistently reflect people’s individual preferences, which limited assurance that care was delivered in a way that promoted independence, choice and control. Daily records showed that, while staff were aware of the tasks to be completed at each visit, there was limited evidence that people were offered choice or encouraged to maintain their independence. Records did not consistently demonstrate that people were supported to carry out tasks for themselves.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.Staff did not consistently respond appropriately to people’s immediate needs. There was variability in staffs’ understanding of escalation processes; some staff described seeking emergency assistance when required, while others stated they would only contact the manager, demonstrating a lack of clarity about when to involve external professionals.Care records often lacked sufficient detail and did not consistently capture key information, such as clinical observations or care needs, including oxygen levels and catheter care. This meant changes in people’s health conditions may not have been recognised or acted upon promptly, increasing the risk of deterioration and delayed intervention.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.Staff felt supported, valued and listened to by management and said they were approachable and responsive. They stated if they had called the office for support, they had been quick to respond. Records showed they received regular discussions with the registered manager about their role.