Medinova Healthcare Ltd,

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

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.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us they would recommend the agency as a place to work and as a company to care for a loved one. The registered manager told us they felt the agency was like a family. They told us they aimed to ensure the staff and people using the service were happy. The provider had developed aims and objectives which included providing kindness and respect and empowering people to make decisions. The provider had received positive feedback from people who had used the service and their relatives.

The staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager. The registered manager told us they had previously managed other care services. They had a management in care qualification.

The registered manager was also the nominated individual and the only manager within the organisation. Whilst they had experience of working for other providers, they did not have external support to help them develop best practice and to ensure regulations were being met. People using the service, and their relatives felt there was good care, but the agency was not meeting the legal requirements for a care provider and the registered manager was not able to demonstrate they had a service improvement plan to ensure legal standards were met.

Staff told us they knew who to speak with if they had concerns.

There were policies and procedures, so staff understood how to speak up. Posters with information about this were on display in the agency offices.

Staff told us their rights were respected.

The provider had a range of policies and procedures designed to ensure workforce equality.

The staff and registered manager were not able to demonstrate an understanding of regulatory requirements.

The provider’s systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service had not been effectively operated. Following our last inspection, we had informed the provider of areas where improvements were needed and where regulations were being breached. Most of these areas had not been improved and no changes had been made to the systems and records which were failing to meet required standards. The provider shared records which stated they were quarterly audits. However, these were not a detailed audit or analysis of the service, and the provider had not undertaken regular checks on medicines management, staff records, care records or competencies of staff. Following our feedback to the registered manager, they started to make improvements and sent us the evidence of this.

People using the service, and their families did not require the support of the provider to access community services. Staff supported 1 person to go to the local shops. Their relative told us they were happy with this support.

We did not receive feedback from external partners regarding this.

The provider did not have links with other providers, the local authority or community groups to share best practice or learn from each other. The registered manager told us their involvement with external professionals was minimal because this aspect of people’s lives was managed by their families.

Staff and leaders did not have a good understanding of how to make improvements happen.

The staff were not supported to develop new skills or learn about best practice and legislation. There were limited external relationships and ways to embed evidence-based practice at the service.