Medinova Healthcare Ltd,

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

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.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s relatives told us they had met with the registered manager to discuss people’s needs and help create a care plan. While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found elements of the service did not meet the expected standards because the provider’s recorded assessments of people’s needs were not detailed enough

Staff told us they had information about people’s needs. However, this was mostly through discussions with each other and family members because they did not always have recorded information to rely on.

The provider had not carried out comprehensive needs assessments in line with best practice guidance. They had recorded basic information about people, but this did not include information about their complex needs and how they wished to be cared for. The assessments were not personalised and did not provide staff with guidance about how to provide care and support. This meant there was a risk people’s needs would not be met.

People’s relatives felt that staff delivered good quality care which supported people. One relative commented, “They are well trained and understand [person’s] underlying health issues as [they have] Alzheimer’s and the carers are all very patient and gentle with [person].“

Staff did not have a good knowledge of evidence based care or innovative approaches.

The staff did not have opportunities to learn about new and innovative approaches to improve the way the service delivered care. For example, training about people with a learning disability or autism.

People’s relatives told us that the staff did not normally need to liaise with other healthcare professionals because this was a role the families undertook. They told us the staff communicated well with each other.

The registered manager and staff told us there were systems for them to communicate with each other and share information to ensure there was a consistent approach. Staff said these were used effectively.

The external professional told us the staff and registered manager had been present when they had been assessing a person. They told us these staff and the registered manager had listened to advice and acted on their recommendations.

The registered manager regularly met with and spoke with staff and there were processes to enable good communication.

The relatives of people using the service told us care workers alerted them to any changes in a person’s health condition.

The registered manager told us staff supported some people with massage therapy and physiotherapy exercises. There was not guidance, risk assessments or care plans relating to this to help ensure staff did this safely and in line with best practice.

Assessments and care plans did not include information about people’s health conditions, any risks associated with these or any care needs relating to these. This meant there was a risk that staff did not have the information they needed to help keep people healthy and to spot signs of deterioration.

Relatives told us the agency responded when people’s needs changed. For example, 1 relative told us, “When [person] was discharged from the hospital after a fall, the manager made adjustments to reflect some changing needs.“ Another relative commented, “The manager has reviewed how things are going.’’ However, records to demonstrate this were not always in place.

Staff told us they monitored people’s wellbeing and spoke with the registered manager or families about any concerns.

The provider’s systems for recording care tasks were not always effective at monitoring whether care was being delivered as planned. We identified some entries made by staff on the system which indicated that care tasks were not being carried out. The registered manager told us this was a fault with the system. This meant that it was harder for the provider to monitor outcomes and care delivery.

People’s relatives told us that they and the person being cared for were consulted about care. They explained staff obtained consent before providing any care. One relative explained, ‘’The carers will always inform [person] about what they are going to do, like ‘we will get you into the shower now and get you dressed’, they communicate all the time with [them].’’

Staff had not undertaken training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and did not always understand their responsibilities under this.

The provider’s systems did not ensure staff were knowledgeable about the legal requirements around consent.