Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Sycamore Lodge

Goodpublished 14 April 2026, 5 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, July 2022

Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that safety records were not always complete.

This was a comprehensive inspection over two days on 9 and 10 June 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records and quality checks, and observed people's care.

The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Safe remained Requires Improvement because records for topical creams and repositioning were not always complete, and some care plans lacked enough personal detail.

Inspectors found enough staff who knew people well. They saw kind and respectful care, and found that people were offered choices and supported to access health professionals. Most improvements required after the previous inspection had been made, and the home was no longer in breach of the regulations.

What inspectors praised
  • Staff knew people well

    Inspectors found enough staff and said they understood people's individual needs and risks. Improvements had also been made in using regular agency staff who were familiar with residents.

    “People were supported by enough staff who were familiar with their individual needs.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    People told inspectors they felt supported. Inspectors observed calm, kind interactions and found that staff respected privacy, dignity and choice.

    “During our inspection we observed staff speaking to people in a kind and caring manner.” from the report
  • Support with health needs

    The home arranged referrals and appointments with healthcare professionals when needed. Records included the details and outcomes of visits.

    “People were supported with referrals to health care professionals when required.” from the report
  • Improved management

    The home had a clearer management team, daily handovers and regular visits from senior managers. Staff and relatives said management was approachable.

    “There was now a clear management structure in place.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Incomplete safety records

    needs fixing

    Some topical cream charts had missing signatures, and repositioning records did not always show whether care had been given or declined. Inspectors recommended a stronger checking system.

    “out of five topical cream charts two people had two missing signatures out of ten days.” from the report
  • Some care plans were too general

    needs fixing

    Some plans did not explain clearly enough how a particular person experienced seizures or needed catheter care. The manager was asked to address this.

    “some required additional information relating to their catheter care and seizure care.” from the report
  • Activities and social contact

    minor

    One activities coordinator had left shortly before the inspection. Feedback included that there was not enough to do and that some people did not have enough social contact.

    “Some comments included, 'Not enough to do, bored' and 'don't get to go outside'.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now check that topical cream charts and repositioning charts are completed accurately every day?
  2. 02How do you make sure electronic and paper care records contain the same information?
  3. 03How are catheter care and seizure care plans made specific to each person?
  4. 04How many staff vacancies remain, and are regular agency staff still being used?
  5. 05What activities and social contact are currently available, following the loss of an activities coordinator?

This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and following up improvements required at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 July 2022 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, August 2021

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks from incomplete records, staffing pressures and weak management checks.

This was an announced focused inspection on 11, 14 and 17 June 2021. Inspectors looked mainly at Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.

People generally said they felt safe and received their medicines. The home was clean and visits were supported. However, care plans, pressure care records, food and fluid charts, observation charts, handover sheets and medicine records were not always accurate or up to date.

Inspectors found high use of agency staff and times when people did not receive the support recorded in their care plans. Management audits had not identified the problems found. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The overall rating had fallen from Good at the previous inspection, published in October 2018.

What inspectors praised
  • People generally felt safe

    Most people and relatives said they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.

    “People were supported by staff who had completed safeguarding training and who knew how to identify concerns and how to report these.” from the report
  • Incidents were monitored

    The home recorded and reviewed accidents and incidents. Records showed that observations and referrals were made when needed.

    “Incidents and accidents were being recorded and analysed so that action could be taken to reduce the risk of them occurring.” from the report
  • The home was clean

    Inspectors found the premises clean and free from odours. Most infection control arrangements they checked were satisfactory.

    “We were assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
  • Safe recruitment checks

    The staff files checked showed the required recruitment checks had been completed.

    “All staff had received the required pre-employment checks including references, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and had their identification checked.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Care records were incomplete

    serious

    Care plans and daily records did not always contain the information staff needed. This included pressure care, repositioning, nutrition and hydration, and observations.

    “People's care plans were not always current, and care was not always delivered as assessed.” from the report
  • Staffing and agency use

    serious

    There was high use of agency staff and vacancies. Inspectors saw people waiting for support, and one unit fell below its allocated staffing level.

    “People were not always cared for by sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced staff to meet's people's care and treatment.” from the report
  • Management checks missed problems

    serious

    Audits and weekly management meetings did not identify the recording, medicines and care planning problems found during the inspection.

    “This meant the providers audits and systems had failed to identify shortfalls found during this inspection.” from the report
  • Infection control gaps

    needs fixing

    Management did not always wear face masks as required. The infection control policy needed updating, and testing was not assured for all agency staff.

    “We were not always assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely as we found management were not always wearing face masks as required.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now check that people receive their pressure care, repositioning and nutrition support as recorded in their care plans?
  2. 02How do you make sure topical creams, pain patches and 'as required' medicines are given and recorded correctly?
  3. 03What has changed to reduce agency staffing, and how are agency staff told about each person's care needs?
  4. 04What action has been taken to make audits identify incomplete care and medicine records?
  5. 05Who is currently managing the home while the registered manager post is being recruited, and what progress has been made with appointing one?

This was an announced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other three key-question ratings were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 August 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Sycamore Lodge

8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. July 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Sycamore Lodge →

  2. August 2021Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Sycamore Lodge →

  3. March 2021Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. January 2021Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. March 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. October 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. November 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. February 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. November 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. February 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  14. July 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  15. September 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  16. May 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  17. December 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset

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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.

See live-in carers near North SomersetProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.