Seraphim Home Care

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met through good organisation and delivery. The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to receiving and acting on complaints.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People were not provided with clear and transparent information that followed consumer rights best practice, including contracts and charges. Documentation about people’s current terms of service, package of care and fees was not always up to date. One person said, “I don’t recall a contract but I do have invoices every month so I am fully aware of the care costs.” Another person newer to the service said, “When we started using them, they came and gave us a complete pack including a contract, which had all the relevant numbers and complaints procedure.” People were not always provided with sufficient documentary outcomes, in line with the providers policies and procedures. For example, complaint outcomes and feedback from questionnaires gathered in August 2024. Management and organisational changes had not always been fully communicated. This meant improvements were not always identified or made. Care plans highlighted people’s communication needs. However, further detail around individual needs would benefit people receiving information in their preferred format so they could be actively involved in their own care. For example, electronically, by post or in large print.

The provider did not adhere to their guidance and policies and follow their own processes to effectively manage complaints. Some complaints had been documented and responded to. However, not all known complaints were recorded along with actions taken. Outcomes did not always clearly document what had been discussed or reviewed so the effectiveness of this could be monitored. The provider did not audit or review complaints to identify themes and trends and to prevent recurrence. The provider had not completed recent recommendations from the local government and social care ombudsman. No actions had been taken to mitigate the concerns identified. This was in relation to people’s contracts and fees. The initial complaint made was not available for review at this assessment and records kept did not demonstrate procedures and legislation had been followed. The provider had not taken proportionate action as services to 1 person had been terminated. Complainants should not have their care and support services negatively impacted by raising a complaint. We received mixed feedback about people’s experiences of raising complaints and concerns. One person said, “I don’t know about a complaint’s procedure. A relative told us, “I do know what the complaints procedure is and would happily use it if I needed to.” People said they would feel comfortable raising concerns with staff. One person said, “Whenever I have asked about something the carers have always been very good and sorted things out for me. I did ring to complain once. They did sort it out straight away.” However, another person who had raised a complaint said, “The response I got was that my concerns have been noted. I don’t think they took my concerns seriously.” This was because the concern that had been raised continued.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.