CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Sycamore Lodge Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including PPE, testing, admissions, visitor safety and social distancing. They were only somewhat assured that outbreaks could be prevented or managed effectively.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly good infection-control arrangements, but some outbreak planning and visiting arrangements needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 19 October 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control, following the COVID-19 outbreak response.
The home had visitor facilities, hand-washing and sanitising arrangements, a visiting room, social distancing measures and good supplies of personal protective equipment. People and staff were tested regularly, and staff had infection-control training.
Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements. They were only somewhat assured that outbreaks could be prevented or managed effectively, that the infection-control policy was up to date, and that visits were being managed fully in line with guidance.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
The home had arrangements to receive visitors safely, including hand hygiene facilities, protective equipment and a visiting room.
“Systems were in place to ensure people received visitors to the service.” from the report
Protective equipment
Protective equipment was readily available, and waste bins were positioned so staff could use them when needed.
“The service had good supplies of PPE that were readily available in stations throughout the service.” from the report
Testing and training
People and staff received regular coronavirus tests, and staff had infection-control training.
“People and staff received regular coronavirus tests in line with the government's current testing programme.” from the report
Social distancing
The layout of communal areas had been changed to support social distancing.
“Furniture within communal areas, such as the lounge, had been positioned to encourage social distancing.” from the report
Outbreak planning
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that outbreaks could be prevented or managed effectively. They asked the provider to review people's and staff's risk assessments and to embed some staff practices more fully.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Infection-control audits
needs fixingThe infection-control policy needed review and the audit tools needed strengthening so that the policy was properly put into practice.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Communication about visits
minorFamilies felt communication about visiting could be better. The provider was signposted to guidance about essential care givers.
“Policies were in place however, families felt communication in this area could be improved.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to people's and staff's infection risk assessments since this inspection?
- 02How have you improved staff practice for preventing and managing infection outbreaks?
- 03How often are infection-control audits completed, and how do you check that actions are followed through?
- 04How will you communicate visiting arrangements and essential care-giver guidance to families?
- 05What are the current ratings for care areas that were not covered by this targeted inspection?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the other care questions were not inspected or rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 November 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 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-managed care, but medicines guidance about pain was not always consistent.
This was an announced focused inspection on 1 October 2020. Inspectors looked mainly at whether people were safe and whether the home was well-led. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records.
Inspectors found that people felt safe and that staff understood how to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, accidents, equipment, staffing, medicines and infection control were checked. The home was clean and staff used protective equipment appropriately.
The home had a positive culture. People, relatives and staff felt able to speak up, and managers used audits and feedback to monitor quality. One shortfall was found: guidance about identifying pain was not consistent for medicines given when needed. The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to raise concerns.
“People said they felt safe living at the service.” from the report
Infection control
The environment was clean and maintained. Inspectors were assured about protective equipment, testing, distancing and infection outbreak arrangements.
“Infection control was managed well, the environment was clean and well maintained and staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
Inspectors found a calm home where people interacted positively with staff and other residents. Staff said they felt supported.
“There was a positive culture in the service.” from the report
Quality checks
Managers carried out regular audits, listened to feedback and used incidents to identify lessons and improvements.
“An effective quality assurance system was in place.” from the report
Pain and as-needed medicines guidance
needs fixingProtocols did not consistently explain how to identify when people were in pain. The manager said the protocols would be updated.
“Protocols were in place but information was not consistent in relation to identifying when people were in pain.” from the report
- 01How have you updated the protocols for identifying pain and giving medicines when needed?
- 02How do you check that people receive medicines when needed safely and for the right reason?
- 03How do you adjust staffing levels when people's needs change?
- 04What did your quality audits identify recently, and what action followed?
- 05How are infection prevention measures maintained and checked?
This was an announced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 November 2020 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 Lodge Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 August 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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of North Lincolnshire
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 £1,300 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.