CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Sycamore Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. They found arrangements for PPE, testing, social distancing, cleaning, staff training and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although the report says staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection. The report describes different ways for people to keep in touch with relatives.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection. The report says quality checks and communication systems were in place for infection control.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that the home had strong infection prevention and control measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 March 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling COVID-19 infections, rather than reviewing every aspect of care.
Inspectors were assured about visitor checks, testing, PPE, social distancing, cleaning, staff training and the arrangements for managing infection outbreaks. People were also supported to keep in touch with relatives through visits, a visiting pod and video calls.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five key questions.
Visitor safety
Essential visitors had to complete several safety checks before entering, including PPE, testing, temperature checks and hand hygiene.
“All essential visitors had to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition, complete NHS Track and Trace information, have a negative COVID-19 test result and have their temperature checked” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found regular cleaning of the home and frequently touched surfaces, with additional deep cleaning when needed.
“The home was very clean and additional cleaning of all areas and frequent touch surfaces was in place such as handrails.” from the report
Staff infection control training
Staff received training on PPE, hand hygiene and other infection control measures. The manager also observed staff using PPE and hand hygiene.
“Staff completed online training and paper-based learning booklets provided by the local NHS infection prevention and control (IPC) team.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home offered face-to-face visits, a visiting pod and video calls so people could keep in touch with relatives.
“People were supported to keep in touch with their relatives.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What visitor checks, testing and PPE requirements are in place now?
- 02How is the visiting pod or any face-to-face visiting area cleaned between visits?
- 03How often do staff receive infection control training and checks on using PPE and hand hygiene?
- 04What arrangements are in place now to prevent and manage an infection outbreak?
- 05How can residents keep in touch with relatives if face-to-face visits are not possible?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection of the home's overall quality of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 2021 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, November 2019
Sycamore Hall was rated Good overall, but inspectors found continuing safety and record-keeping problems.
Inspectors visited on 19 and 24 September 2019. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Staff were trained and caring, knew people's preferences, and supported people to stay independent, join activities and keep in touch with others.
Safe was still rated Requires Improvement. Records did not always show people's health, hydration or medical appointments clearly, and some medicines and recruitment checks needed improvement. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good.
Trained staff
Staff had completed induction and training and received supervision and support. Inspectors found they were competent and knowledgeable.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled; and carried out their roles effectively.” from the report
Personalised activities
People could take part in outings, activities and community links that matched their interests. Staff also provided one-to-one time for people at risk of isolation.
“People enjoyed a range of outings and in-house activities.” from the report
Improving leadership
The new manager understood where improvements were needed and had an action plan. The service's Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
“The new manager and clinical lead understood where they needed to make improvements and had a robust action plan in place to continue making improvements.” from the report
Incomplete safety records
seriousRecords did not always show health and wellbeing checks clearly or guide care. Hydration risks were not assessed in a systematic way, and medical appointments were difficult to track.
“Records to monitor people's health and wellbeing were not always completed thoroughly or used to direct their care.” from the report
Medicines instructions
seriousSome person-centred protocols were missing for medicines prescribed to be given when needed. The manager agreed to check that these were put in place.
“Person centred protocols were not always in place to guide staff when they should administer medicines prescribed to be taken as and when required.” from the report
Recording concerns
needs fixingConcerns raised directly with staff were not always passed to the manager's records. A new process was planned to capture all feedback.
“Where people and relatives spoke with staff about concerns the information had not always been recorded with the manager.” from the report
Communication assessments
minorStaff understood people's communication needs, but assessments had not been completed in line with the Accessible Information Standard.
“However, an assessment of their communication needs in line with the AIS had not been completed.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure hydration risks are assessed and records accurately show how much each person drinks?
- 02How are medical appointments now recorded so families and staff can see what has happened and what follow-up is needed?
- 03Have all medicines prescribed to be given when needed been given clear, person-centred protocols?
- 04How do you check that agency workers have the right skills for the role and that staff references are genuine?
- 05How are concerns raised with care staff now recorded, reviewed and acted on?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, following the previous Requires Improvement rating published in October 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 November 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 Hall
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 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 24 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.