CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sycamore Cottage Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- The home had enough staff, safe recruitment and risk assessments. However, the old kitchen did not always meet expected food hygiene standards, and some instructions for 'as required' medicines were not clearly recorded.
- Effective?
- Good
- This report did not give a rating or detailed findings for Effective.
- Caring?
- Good
- This report did not give a rating for Caring. Inspectors did report that care was person-centred and that staff knew people well.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This report did not give a rating or detailed findings for Responsive. Inspectors reported that people were involved in planning their care and support.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff knew people well, worked in a person-centred way, and used audits and checks to monitor the service. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Sycamore Cottage Residential Home is rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but improvements were still needed with kitchen standards and some medicines instructions.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 26 January 2023. They spoke with people and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The overall rating was Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because the old kitchen did not always meet expected food hygiene standards and instructions for some 'as required' medicines were not always clear. Well-led was rated Good.
The home had enough staff, and people said they felt safe and had confidence in staff. Care was person-centred, people were involved in decisions, and managers used checks and audits to find and address improvements.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published in October 2019. Inspectors found improvements had been made and said the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were usually met. Staff had time to meet people's needs, and extra staff were arranged when someone's needs changed.
“People told us there were enough staff. We saw staff spending time with people and responding to their requests in a timely manner.” from the report
People felt safe
People had confidence in staff and felt able to raise concerns. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse and how to reduce risks.
“People told us they felt safe. They had confidence in the staff supporting them.” from the report
Person-centred care
Staff knew people's interests, preferences and needs. People were involved in planning their care and were supported to continue activities they enjoyed.
“The culture at the service was person centred. Staff and managers shared the same values.” from the report
Improved management
The provider had made changes since the previous inspection, including improvements to staffing, the building and management checks.
“Regular audits and checks were carried out by staff and by the nominated individual.” from the report
Kitchen standards
needs fixingExpected food hygiene standards could not always be met because the kitchen was old and needed replacing. A replacement had been ordered, but an installation date was still awaited.
“Expected food hygiene standards could not always be met because the kitchen was old and required replacement.” from the report
Medicine instructions
needs fixingInstructions for some medicines given only when needed were not always recorded clearly. Inspectors recommended that the home set out when and in what circumstances these medicines should be given.
“However, the instructions for when these medicines should be given were not always recorded.” from the report
- 01When will the replacement kitchen be delivered and installed, and what checks are being made on food hygiene in the meantime?
- 02How have the instructions for 'as required' medicines been rewritten and checked?
- 03Who is currently responsible for managing the home while there is no registered manager?
- 04Has the acting manager applied to become the registered manager, and what is the current position?
- 05How will you tell families about any further changes to staffing, the building or medicines arrangements?
This was an unannounced focused inspection covering Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not separately rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 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, October 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care but too few staff and weak oversight affected safety.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with seven people, three relatives and five staff. They observed people who could not speak with them and checked care records, recruitment, training, medicines, accidents and quality checks.
The home was caring, effective and responsive. Staff knew people well, treated them kindly and supported their healthcare, food, choices and personal care. Care plans were detailed and complaints were handled within the home's stated timescales.
Safety and leadership required improvement. There were not enough staff to provide care promptly, supervise people safely and offer enough social interaction. The home was not always clean and tidy, garden access was limited, and quality checks had not acted quickly enough on known problems.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Effective improved from Requires Improvement to Good, while Safe and Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and provided care in a kind and meaningful way. Relatives also described staff as caring and loving.
“People were relaxed with staff and interactions were positive, although at times this was task focussed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, interests, religious beliefs and important relationships. Staff could explain how people wanted to be supported.
“People had individualised care plans, which detailed the care and support people wanted and needed” from the report
Good training and healthcare
Staff received induction, ongoing training, supervision and appraisals. People were supported to access health professionals and to eat and drink enough.
“Staff training was refreshed to keep staff up to date with best practice.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and administration records were accurate and regularly checked. Staff administering medicines had been trained.
“People received their medicines safely. Medicines were stored securely, and medicines administration records in use were accurate, and regularly checked for any mistakes.” from the report
Too few staff
seriousStaff were expected to provide care, cook and clean. People waited for personal care and help to get up, and some were left without a call bell or enough supervision.
“There was not enough staff employed to meet people's needs in a safe and timely way.” from the report
Cleanliness and garden access
needs fixingSome areas received only a basic clean. A used urine bag was left on a bedroom floor for more than three hours, and people with limited mobility could not access the garden independently.
“The environment was untidy with some areas only receiving a basic clean.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingLow staffing meant there were periods with little or no stimulation. Activities shown in photographs were not up to date.
“There were times throughout the day when there was little or no stimulation for people.” from the report
Weak quality oversight
needs fixingChecks had not identified the effect of staffing levels on people's daily lives. Improvement work, including refurbishment and garden maintenance, had not been completed promptly.
“The systems in place to monitor the quality of care had failed to pick up the impact staffing levels had on people's experience of life in the home.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing levels since the inspection, and how do you calculate the number of staff needed for each shift?
- 02How do you make sure people who need two carers or one-to-one support do not have to wait?
- 03What has been done to improve cleaning, maintain the garden and allow people with limited mobility to access it?
- 04What regular activities and social stimulation are now available, and who has time to support people to take part?
- 05What action has been completed in response to the Regulation 18 staffing breach, and what evidence can you show?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good, but Safe and Well-led were now Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 October 2019 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 Cottage Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Sycamore Cottage Residential Home →
- October 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Sycamore Cottage Residential Home →
- April 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 May 2016.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.