CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sycamore House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, good risk assessments, safe recruitment and well-managed medicines. The home was clean and had systems for learning from accidents and incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had ongoing training and supervision. People received suitable food, healthcare support and help with decisions, including arrangements under the Mental Capacity Act when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful relationships. Staff supported people's communication, cultural and religious needs, privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. People had keyworkers, activities, support with communication and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular quality checks, clear staff responsibilities and opportunities for people and staff to give feedback. Inspectors found strong links with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Sycamore House was rated Good in all areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 February 2019. One inspector and an expert-by-experience spoke with eight people, staff and managers. They also observed care, reviewed five care plans and checked medicines records, accidents, meetings and quality audits.
Inspectors found people were safe, with enough staff and well-managed medicines. Staff were trained and supported people with food, healthcare, communication, religion and personal choices. People described kind and respectful relationships with staff.
Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. People could take part in activities, raise complaints and give their views. The home had systems to monitor quality and make improvements.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the service met legal requirements and that people's outcomes were consistently good at the time of the inspection.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of using safe procedures.
“There were enough staff to ensure people's needs were met safely.” from the report
Kind relationships
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff understood people's histories and supported their language, cultural and religious needs.
“People had caring, kind supportive relationships with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. People had keyworkers and were supported to make choices about daily life and activities.
“There were care plans in place which were detailed and regularly reviewed.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The provider used audits, accident reviews, meetings and external checks to monitor quality and identify improvements.
“There were quality audits in place to measure the success of the service and to continue to develop it.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's particular mental health needs, and how would you involve them in reviewing their care plan?
- 02What activities and outings would be available for my relative, including during colder months when outings may be less popular?
- 03How would you support my relative's preferred language, religion, culture and communication needs?
- 04How would you manage my relative's medicines, including any medicines prescribed to take as required?
- 05What arrangements would be made to discuss and record my relative's wishes about end of life care?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection that looked at the care, accommodation and all five CQC questions; the previous inspection in March 2016 was also rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 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 House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 2010.
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 Birmingham
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 £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.