Medinova Healthcare Ltd,

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

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.

This service scored 75 (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 were happy with the care they received. Their comments included, “The carers really help me and give me the opportunity to have a break, I have confidence that the carers will see to [person’s] every need’’, ‘’The care package is allowing [person] to remain at home’’, ‘’They meet [person’s] individual needs and are flexible’’ and ‘’They are thoughtful and introduce the carers to [person] so they get to know one another.’’

The registered manager told us they employed staff from a range of cultural backgrounds and who spoke different languages. They told us this meant they could provide culturally sensitive care to people.

The agency was not supporting any people with this aspect of their needs at the time of our assessment.

Staff had not undertaken this work because people had not required this aspect of the service.

We did not receive feedback from external partners with this aspect of the service.

The provider had appropriate policies and procedures which they could implement if needed.

People using the service, and their relatives were given information about the agency and how to deal with different emergency scenarios, who to contact and the type of care the agency would provide. Relatives told us the registered manager kept them informed.

Staff told us there was information about the agency available to them and the people using the service.

The provider had a system where they created a file of information which was left at people’s homes.

People’s relatives told us the provider listened to their feedback and worked with them. They knew how to make a complaint, and they felt concerns were addressed. One relative told us, “A while ago we did have carers that left early and didn’t stay for the full time of the call, I complained to the manager about calls being cut short and the problem was resolved promptly.’’

Staff told us the listened to any comments from people and their relatives and shared this with the registered manager.

There was a suitable procedure for dealing with complaints and people were aware of this.

People were able to access the service without discrimination.

Staff told us there were no barriers to supporting people with different needs. Staff understood that they should not discriminate against people.

The provider operated an on-call system where staff, people using the service and relatives could contact them when they needed extra support or in an emergency. This enabled people to overcome barriers to ensure equal access to healthcare.

People’s relatives told us they felt their human rights were upheld and they were treated equitably.

Staff spoke a range of different languages and conversed with people in their first language. Staff and people’s relatives told us this helped with communication and care delivery.

Care plans did not include information about people’s cultural needs or how they needed to be supported to celebrate or practice religions. Nor did the plans include information about disabilities or sensory impairments. Records showed that some but not all staff had completed training about equality and diversity

No one using the service was being supported with end of life care at the time of our assessment.

The registered manager told us they had not had discussions with people about this because this was not needed.

Staff had not undertaken training about providing end of life care. The registered manager told us this training was available from their training provider and they could access this if needed.