While the document is careful to recall on numerous occasions its still provisional nature, the conclusions of the “independent evaluation mission relating to the allegations of the work The Gravediggers »entrusted by Orpea to the audit firms Grant Thornton and Alvarez & Marsal are nevertheless, once again, overwhelming for the group of retirement homes.
To respond to the crisis caused by the publication, at the end of January, of the investigative book by journalist Victor Castanet (The Gravediggers, Fayard, 400 pages, 22.90 euros) denouncing mistreatment, negligence and obsession with profit within it, Orpea, European leader in accommodation establishments for dependent elderly people (Ehpad), had announced an independent audit mission, entrusted to two renowned firms. They were able to carry out their investigations for two months, in the form of unannounced visits to establishments, interviews with group employees, or even examinations of financial and accounting documents.
If their final report is not expected before the end of June, the two firms already confirm a good part of the revelations of the work of Mr. Castanet, supported by the administrative investigation carried out by the general inspection of finances and the inspection General of Social Affairs. Particularly “the existence of rebates, rebates and rebates granted including by suppliers of products financed from public funds, erroneous declarations of employment accounts to the supervisory authorities, non-compliance in the contracting of fixed-term contracts and the use of intermediaries, including a former prefect”, to carry out lobbying activities.
Managers encouraged to make profits
Some significant elements of Mr. Castanet’s work are however not confirmed by Grant Thomson and Alvarez & Marsal, such as the lack of urinary protection. The firm confirms a ratio of 2.2 exchanges per resident per day, but believes, in light of interviews with staff, that this figure seems sufficient, as not all residents need these protections.
Similarly, the inadequacy of food rations, mentioned in the book and yet confirmed by the administrative inquiry made public in early March by the government, is not noted by the audit. He considers that the “daily cost” per resident “does not qualify a situation of rationing or insufficient coverage of the nutritional needs of residents”, even if he specifies that the investigations “do not allow the taste or nutritional quality of the meals served to be assessed”. Another exculpatory element: if it points to a “very constraining budgetary process”the audit cannot confirm the systematic policy of refusal by head office of purchase requests made by facility managers beyond the planned budgets.
You have 45.58% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.