• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Seremed Healthcare

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Unit 66 Basepoint Business Centre, Premier Way, Romsey, SO51 9AQ (01794) 874581

Provided and run by:
Seremed Healthcare Ltd

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

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.
 

29 April 2022

During a routine inspection

About the service

Seremed Healthcare is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in their own homes. There were three people using the service at the time of the inspection all of whom were receiving personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Information about risks to people was not always comprehensive. More robust systems were needed to gather safety related information to look for themes or trends or to help identify learning.

We were not assured, that the governance systems in place were being fully effective, or reliable, at driving improvements and ensuring that the fundamental standards were being met. We were concerned that the registered manager was not, in practice, in day to day management of the service, or that they had a sufficient oversight of the provision of care.

People and their relatives were positive about staffing and told us they received a consistent and reliable service. Overall, relevant recruitment checks were in place including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. Staff followed safe infection control practices. Staff knew how to recognise the signs of abuse.

People and their relatives had confidence in the skills and knowledge of the care team. New or inexperienced staff were mentored and guided, but ongoing supervision and training was not taking place consistently. There was scope to develop care plans to create more accurate, personalised and comprehensive plans that more fully described the person’s needs and how these were to be met. There was mixed evidence about how effectively staff monitored people’s health. People were supported with preparation of food and drinks.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff spoke positively about their work and the importance of building strong relationships with people. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and promoted people’s independence.

Staff provided people with person-centred support and people received consistent, timely care and support from staff who knew them well and understood their needs. A complaints policy was in place. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people experienced a comfortable and dignified death however, people’s priorities for their future care had not been incorporated into an end of life or advanced care plan.

The registered manager had instilled a positive work culture where staff felt valued. Feedback from people and their relatives indicated that they felt the service was well managed. They described staff as working well as a team and displaying person centred values and behaviours including compassion and respect and the promotion of independence.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

This service was registered with us on 4 September 2020 and this is the first inspection.

Why we inspected

We undertook this inspection so that we could give this registered service a rating.

Enforcement

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service and will take further action if needed.

We have identified breaches in relation to risk management and the effectiveness of the governance arrangements.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.