Medinova Healthcare Ltd,

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 6 December 2024 (assessment visit 11 October 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   –No rating No rating

   We identified breaches in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and fit and proper persons employed.

   The service was not always safe.

   Medicines were not always managed in a safe way and in line with best practice. There was not enough information about people’s medicines. Staff had not always had enough training or support to understand how to safely manage medicines and the provider’s systems for ensuring good practice were not always operated effectively.

   Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing had not always been assessed or planned for. This meant that staff did not have enough information and guidance to ensure they provided safe care.

   The provider’s systems for recruiting staff had not always been followed. They had not carried out sufficient checks to ensure staff were suitable, had the skills needed and were competent. Some staff had not completed essential training, including working with people with a learning disability, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and practical manual handling techniques which they needed to equip them for their roles and responsibilities.

   There were appropriate systems for responding to complaints, accidents and incidents as well as safeguarding concerns. There had not been any such events at the service. People’s relatives knew who to speak with if they had concerns and felt these would be addressed if needed.

2. Effective

   GGood Good

   We identified breaches in relation to staffing and person-centred care.

   Some aspects of the service were not effective.

   Whilst people’s relatives told us they had been involved in making decisions, we found that the provider had not carried out detailed assessments which considered all of people’s needs and choices. This meant that care plans were not detailed enough to ensure staff understood how to meet people’s needs.

   The registered manager told us they were not involved with supporting people with accessing healthcare services because this was not part of their care package People’s relatives told us that staff helped to monitor people’s wellbeing and would let them know if a person became unwell. However, the provider had not recorded any information about people’s healthcare conditions in assessments or care plans. This meant there was no guidance for staff to help them understand about people’s health and whether there were any risks or needs they should be aware of.

   The staff had not undertaken necessary training to ensure they understood and delivered care which reflected best practice. For example, the staff had not undertaken training about people with a learning disability or dementia. We discussed this with the registered manager, so they knew where to find the guidance they needed to share with staff.

   Staff recorded care they had provided to people, but this did not include monitoring of outcomes or their wellbeing. The registered manager’s audits and meetings with staff included some discussion around people’s needs and the registered manager met with people to review their care plans. However, records were not always updated to show this.

   People’s relatives told us that people were asked for their consent to care and the staff respected this.

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   The staff were caring. However, records and checks to ensure personalised care was always delivered needed to be improved to make sure people always received caring and personalised support.

   People’s individual needs were not assessed or planned for in enough detail. Care records were not personalised. There was not enough information about how they wanted to be cared for and supported. Some people did not use words to communicate. There was no information for staff about how to understand how the person communicated or guidance so they could engage with the person and offer choices.

   People’s relatives told us the staff were kind, caring and they had good relationships with them. They explained staff were respectful and polite.

   The staff told us they felt supported and well-treated by the registered manager.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   The service was responsive.

   People’s relatives told us they received personalised care and their human rights were respected. However, there was not always enough information about their individual needs, including their equality and diversity needs.

   People knew how to make a complaint. They had opportunities to speak with the registered manager and felt listened to and respected. People had information about the care agency and knew when they were going to receive care and support.

   The provider did not support people to access external resources or healthcare professionals because all the people using the service at the time of our assessment had family members who supported them with this. However, staff informed families and the registered manager when they identified a person became ill.

5. Well-led

   –No rating No rating

   We identified breaches in relation to good governance.

   The service was not always well-led.

   The provider’s systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service were not always effectively operated. The provider did not carry out robust audits and this meant they had not identified where improvements were needed, for example with care records, staff recruitment and medicines management.

   Staff felt supported and knew how to speak up if they had concerns. However, there were not always systems in place to support staff to understand about best practice. The registered manager worked alongside staff delivering care. This meant they knew people using the service, their families and staff but there needed to be improvements with record keeping. Whilst the registered manager had experience of working in care settings, they did not access a range of external support and guidance to help make sure they kept up to date with legislative requirements and good practice.