Sycamore Lodge

Updated 30 January 2026

Date of assessment 11 February to 4 March 2026. The service provides nursing, residential and dementia care for up to 78 people across 3 floors. At the time of our assessment, 72 people were living at the home, including people living with dementia. We carried out this assessment following safeguarding concerns, which suggested some people may not have been receiving appropriate care.

Improvements had been made to systems for reviewing records and enhancing information about people’s individual needs since the last inspection. However, these improvements were not yet consistent across all areas, and additional work was needed to ensure sustained and reliable practice.

Sycamore Lodge continued to demonstrate a caring culture, with positive relationships between staff, people and their families, and ongoing improvement supported by stable leadership. People told us they felt safe, well cared for and treated with kindness. We observed compassionate interactions, and staff used people’s life histories to inform daily care, activities and end of life support. Relatives consistently described the home as welcoming, friendly and an extension of family life.

The environment remained clean, safe and well maintained. Staffing levels were generally safe, supported by low agency use, a reliable internal bank and strong recruitment processes. Staff received regular training and competency checks and reported high levels of engagement and pride in their work. Some pressures were noted on the first floor residential unit, including inconsistent engagement during mealtimes; leaders were addressing this through supervision and additional training.

People experienced positive clinical outcomes, supported by effective work with external professionals and daily oversight of key risks such as falls, wounds, infections and unplanned weight loss. However, some aspects of care planning and clinical documentation still required improvement. This included care plans and records relating to catheter care, hydration monitoring, diabetes management, pain assessment and mattress settings. While we did not identify significant harm, inconsistent recording reduced assurance best practice was embedded consistently.

Safeguarding processes were effective, and staff escalated concerns appropriately. Leaders promoted openness and learning from incidents. People were usually involved in decisions about their care; however, documentation relating to some restrictive practices including bed sensors and acoustic monitoring, required clearer mental capacity assessments and best interest decision making.

Overall, Sycamore Lodge provided safe, effective and person centred care, with continued improvements noted. Some further work was required to ensure care plans and clinical records fully supported consistent and high quality practice.

Updated 30 January 2026

People shared mixed but often positive experiences of living at Sycamore Lodge. Many relatives told us staff were kind, caring and attentive, and people generally felt safe. Several family members visited daily and said they were welcomed and kept informed about their loved one’s wellbeing. One relative commented that staff were, “extremely caring… they treat him with great care and respect” while another said the home felt, “lovely, – an extension of home… so pleasant, friendly and welcoming.”

People described positive relationships with staff and said staff usually responded quickly when help was needed. Staff were observed offering reassurance and supporting people with their mobility needs and personal care. Some people spoke warmly about certain team leaders and nursing staff, noting their consistency and communication. People and relatives valued the regular resident and family meetings and told us concerns were usually responded to promptly.

However, people’s experiences were not consistently good. Some relatives raised concerns about missing personal items, including hearing aids, glasses and clothing. A few people told us basic care tasks were sometimes overlooked, such as ensuring call bells were within reach and monitoring fluid intake. One person said they were often, “waiting for staff to come and help me” and another described occasions where cultural or communication differences affected the quality of interactions.

Some people could not directly tell us about their experiences, we spent time observing their interactions with staff. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI), a structured observation tool to help us understand their experience and assess whether they received good care. We observed examples where people’s dignity and comfort were not always prioritised, including where people required nail care and pressure-relieving items not consistently applied. Some relatives felt staff could be more proactive and better coordinated, and one person described a negative experience with night staff.

Despite these concerns, many people and families told us they felt safe, respected and well cared for overall, and several highlighted the positive impact of meaningful activities, the welcoming atmosphere, and strong relationships with staff. The overall experience at Sycamore Lodge varied, but people consistently valued compassionate individuals within the team who made a difference to their daily lives.