Seremed Healthcare

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

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.
At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.
The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.
 

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.
Staff told us they were happy with the company and its values. They also told us the provider had an open culture. Values and goals of the provider were covered during staff induction.
The registered manager said they promoted a culture of encouraging staff to report concerns, as the people they supported were vulnerable. They also told us, “Our induction process highlights the importance of equality and diversity.”
 

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.
The registered manager had qualifications in leadership, management and business, and was working towards their level 5 leadership in health and social care. The registered manager said they were well supported by the nominated individual, valuing their experience. The provider planned for the administrator, who had experience in care, to become the registered manager, with the registered manager becoming the nominated individual.
Staff told us leaders had the necessary skills and experience, and they felt supported in their role, although more support would be welcomed with staff rotas and work/life balance.
 

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.
People and relatives we spoke with were happy to raise concerns if needed.
Staff told us they felt able to speak up to raise concerns. They were comfortable with speaking to the registered manager, but some said issues with the rota had not been listened to. However, there were no issues with raising safety concerns and the registered manager took action during the inspection to review the rota with staff.
There were policies in place including whistleblowing. The registered manager told us staff were encouraged to report things which were not right, and staff were confident to raise issues.
 

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.
There were policies in place for equality which staff had access to. The provider had employed a workforce mainly via the government sponsorship scheme. The provider had supported staff appropriately through maternity, making suitable adjustments where needed.
 

The provider had made improvements to their governance systems since our last inspection. This included developing clearer responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability. However, further improvements were needed to ensure all care related documentation was clear, accessible and sufficiently detailed. The provider also needed to ensure their auditing and business continuity processes were effective in promoting safety and good quality care.
There were regular audits in place for daily logs, care plans and incidents (when applicable). There was evidence of medicines audits including medicines counts taking place. However, audits had not picked up the issues we found with recruitment and medicines records.
Although there was a business continuity plan in place, it did not include prioritising care for the most vulnerable of people supported. The registered manager updated this during the inspection and was in the process of creating a red/amber/green (RAG) rating for all of the people supported. The provider was also working with other healthcare professionals to create personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) for people with complex needs.
The service had improved sufficiently in this area, so they were no longer in breach of the regulations. However, auditing for recruitment and care records, as well as business continuity needed to be embedded to ensure a thorough oversight was in place.
 

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.
There was evidence of the provider working in partnership with other organisations and professionals. This included SaLT assessments to help people reduce the risk of choking. The registered manager told us they worked a lot with social workers for reviews of care, and district nurses and occupational therapists for the best outcome for the people they support. This was supported with how they regularly followed up concerns about people with other agencies.
 

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.
The registered manager acknowledged areas for improvement including the rotas for staff. They were also working with the electronic care system supplier to improve the care record and management system. This included implementing the electronic MAR charts so staff could see quicker updates and to get alerts for missed medicines. The registered manager also wanted to develop existing staff skills to aid retention.
The provider had started using a “You said, we did” process to show people what they had done from their feedback.
Where an incident had resulted in a safeguarding referral there was evidence of lessons learned being shared with staff.