CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sydney House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, well-managed risks and safe medicines practice. The home was clean and staff followed infection control guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had suitable training and support. People had choices about food and drink, access to healthcare and care that followed the Mental Capacity Act principles.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, compassionate and respectful. They knew people's preferences and supported their dignity, independence and involvement in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's needs, interests and communication methods. Complaints were investigated, resolved and used to improve the service.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found strong leadership, a person-centred culture and regular quality checks. Managers involved people, relatives and staff in decisions and acted on feedback.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no serious risks or concerns identified.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection. One inspector and an expert by experience visited, spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, and checked care records and other management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, good food and healthcare support, respectful care, personalised support and strong management.
People and relatives were very positive about the home. Inspectors found no evidence of serious risks or concerns. The home was already rated Good at the previous inspection in 2016, and this rating continued.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's dignity and involving them in choices.
“We saw staff throughout our inspection were sensitive and discreet when supporting people, they respected people's choices and acted on their requests and decisions.” from the report
Safe medicines and equipment
Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. Medicines were stored securely and records were kept.
“Staff managed medicines well and systems and processes were very well organised.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, life histories and needs. Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and preferred ways of receiving care.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Good food and drink choices
People could choose from different meals and had enough to eat and drink. Staff monitored nutrition and involved health professionals when needed.
“Meals were well presented, appetising and nutritious. Mealtimes were relaxed, social occasions.” from the report
Strong leadership
Inspectors found approachable managers, supportive staff relationships and regular quality monitoring. Feedback was used to make changes.
“The registered manager provided very strong leadership and everyone we spoke with said they felt supported.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What changes have been made since the refurbishment, and are any works still outstanding?
- 02How do you assess whether there are enough staff when people's needs change suddenly?
- 03How would you support my relative's particular communication needs, preferences and independence?
- 04How do you monitor nutrition and respond if someone is at risk of malnutrition?
- 05How are families involved in care planning, complaints and decisions about end-of-life care?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report gives the visit date as 13 February 2019 but also refers to 13 January 2019 in one section. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 March 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 Sydney House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 April 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.