CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Sycamore Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, infection control, accidents and staffing were generally managed safely, although two agency staff lacked profiles and an induction on the first inspection day.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff had training and supervision, and people were supported with nutrition, healthcare, communication and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and caring. Inspectors found that staff promoted dignity, privacy, independence and involvement in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people's individual needs, wishes and communication methods. People had activities, social support and a complaints process that inspectors found was acted on appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was well managed, with quality checks, feedback from people and staff, and partnership working with health professionals. Leaders were described as approachable and supportive.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a small issue around agency staff induction.
The inspection visits took place on 29 September and 11 October 2022. They were unannounced. Inspectors spoke with 17 people, 26 relatives and 18 staff, observed care, checked the building and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, infection control, staffing, training, nutrition, activities and complaints were generally managed well.
Inspectors found that two agency staff working on the first inspection day did not have staff profiles in the agency file and had not received an induction to the home. The provider took immediate action to reduce the risk of this happening again.
The overall Good rating means the home was meeting the required standards and providing care that inspectors judged to be good. All five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection, published on 23 May 2018.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe and well looked after. Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding and managed risks effectively.
“People felt very safe living in the home and with the support they received from staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found that staff treated people with dignity and supported their independence.
“People felt respected, listened to and very well cared for.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, communication needs and support requirements. Staff reviewed these plans as people's needs changed.
“People received person-centred care which met their needs and preferences.” from the report
Good activities and social support
People could take part in a range of activities, with dedicated activities staff tailoring them to people's interests.
“The home had dedicated activities staff including an activities manager who was very passionate about their role and tailored activities to what people wanted to do.” from the report
Good management and oversight
The provider used audits, meetings, surveys and reviews to monitor quality and gather views from people, relatives and staff.
“The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place which included regular audits.” from the report
Agency staff induction
needs fixingTwo agency staff working on the first inspection day did not have profiles in the agency staff file and had not received an induction to the home. The provider took immediate action to reduce the risk of this happening again.
“However, 2 agency staff on duty on day 1 of inspection did not have profiles in the agency staff file and they hadn't received an induction into the service.” from the report
- 01How do you check agency staff profiles before they begin work in the home?
- 02What induction must agency staff complete before supporting residents?
- 03How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's individual care plan and risks?
- 04How are people's food preferences, dietary needs and choking risks recorded and passed to staff?
- 05How can relatives take part in regular care plan reviews and raise concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures, and the previous Good ratings remained in place. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some medicine storage and record-keeping issues addressed during the inspection.
The inspection took place over 21 and 23 February 2018. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment files, training records and management information.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, good staff training, kind care and detailed care plans. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare, activities and everyday choices.
Inspectors found that medicines were mostly managed safely. However, unwanted medicines were not stored in line with waste regulations, and there were some gaps in daily temperature records. The provider and manager acted immediately, and evidence was later provided that these issues had been addressed.
The home was last rated Good overall in November 2015, although Safe was later rated Requires Improvement because medicine management needed to improve. Improvements were found in August 2016, and this inspection found that they had mostly been sustained.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs quickly and keep them safe.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs quickly and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff, and inspectors saw staff communicate in a kind and considerate way.
“Throughout our visit staff spoke to people in a kind and considerate manner.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could take part in group or one-to-one activities, outings and entertainment. Activities could be adapted for people living with dementia.
“People were supported to take part in meaningful activities throughout the day.” from the report
Listening to feedback
The provider acted on feedback by adding lunch choices and buying a coffee machine for a shared seating area.
“This meant the provider acted on people's feedback to improve outcomes for people.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Regular checks covered medicines, care documents, infection control and health and safety. Actions were recorded in a service improvement plan.
“Actions arising from audits carried out by the provider, registered manager and deputy manager were captured in a single 'service improvement plan' with target dates for completion.” from the report
Medicine storage
needs fixingUnwanted medicines were not stored in line with waste regulations. The provider and manager took immediate action, and later supplied evidence that the issue had been addressed.
“Medicines were mostly managed safely and effectively, although we found the arrangements to store unwanted medicines did not meet waste regulations.” from the report
Medicine temperature records
needs fixingSome daily records showing medicine storage temperatures were incomplete. The report says this was dealt with during the inspection.
“Medicines were stored at the correct temperature although we found some gaps in the daily records relating to this.” from the report
Audits did not find every issue
needs fixingThe quality checks were generally effective, but they had not identified all the medicine problems before inspectors found them.
“Although some issues regarding medicines had not been identified the provider and manager acted immediately to rectify this by the end of our inspection.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that unwanted medicines are stored and disposed of in line with waste regulations?
- 02How are medicine storage temperatures recorded each day, and who checks that the records are complete?
- 03What evidence can you show that the medicine issues found at the inspection have stayed resolved?
- 04How will you make sure audits identify medicine problems promptly?
- 05How will my relative and family be involved in reviewing the care plan if their needs or preferences change?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 May 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Sycamore Care Centre
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- February 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Sunderland
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £950 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.