Seremed Healthcare

Updated 29 April 2025

Date of Assessment: 30 March to 13 June 2025. This assessment was prompted by a review of the information we held about the service. The service is a care at home service providing support to adults of all ages living in their own homes. CQC only inspects where people are receiving the regulated activity personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. At the time of the assessment 24 people were using the service. We assessed the service to check whether improvements had been made following our previous inspection. We assessed all of the quality statements from the safe and well-led key questions and 2 quality statements from caring and responsive. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores from our last inspection to give the rating for this assessment.

There was a positive learning culture, where the provider was pro-active in seeking feedback and implanting learning to make improvements. People and relatives knew how to give feedback and were confident the provider took it seriously and acted on it. People were protected and kept safe. Staff were happy to raise any safety concerns and felt they would be dealt with properly. There were sufficient numbers of staff in place. Some improvement was needed to recruitment records. People’s care reflected their needs and people were consulted around how they wished their care to be carried out. Staff understood and managed risks related to people’s care, which helped keep them safe. Safe systems were in place to ensure medicines were administered appropriately where required, although some medicine records needed to be clearer in relation to dosage. Staff worked with stakeholders involved in people’s care to promote the best outcomes and safe transitions when people moved between services. Staff told us they were not always given adequate notice from the provider around their schedule of planned care calls. They said this made it difficult to plan ahead and negatively affected their wellbeing. The registered manager made sure staff received training to maintain high-quality care, although attendance at team meetings and frequency of supervisions needed to improve. The registered manager was aware of staff’s feedback and had put measures in place to address this. Staff cared for people with dignity and respect and promoted their independence. People were treated with kindness and compassion and had a good level of consistency in care staff.
Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt able to give feedback and were treated equally. The provider had governance systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of care, although some areas could be improved to be more thorough. Managers worked with stakeholders in the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas.
The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.
 

Updated 29 April 2025

We spoke with 2 people, and 6 relatives of people who used the service via telephone calls, to gain feedback about their experiences of receiving care from the provider.
People were overwhelmingly positive about the quality of their care. They felt safe and were fully involved in planning their care and understood their rights. A relative told us, “I’m very pleased with the carers they are professionals and have helped my [relative] feel more independent.”
People said they received high quality care from knowledgeable staff who treated them as individuals. One person said, “They are brilliant, very pleasant, lovely people I have no problems with them.” Whilst a relative told us, “They provide my [relative] with the necessary medications, and I have no concerns about the care.”
Several relatives described how staff treated their relative kindly and made sure any personal care was done sensitively, preserving their privacy and dignity. One relative we spoke to said, “We are very pleased with the carers; [relative] looks forward to their visits. They know their job and are emotionally sensitive to the situation.”
Relatives told us staff arrived on time and their family member received consistent and competent staff. Comments included, “All staff are prompt, prepared and cheerful”, “We normally have 3 regular (staff), and they turn up on time or will ring to let us know if they are going to be late”, and, “If there is a new carer then they will shadow the regular carer initially so there is some in house training and planning.”
People and relatives felt able to complain and were confident action would be taken, and improvements would be made. One relative said, “We have had no complaints but if I had to make a complaint, I would feel comfortable in speaking to the office.”
People and relatives knew staff and leaders well. Comments included, “[Registered manager] comes around every few months to see how things are and do a check” and “[Relative] trusts the girls (staff), she knows their names and 9/10 times she will do what they want her to do, she has vascular dementia, and we work as a team. I trust the girls too.”