Sycamore Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effectively assessed using a broad range of clinical tools covering pressure care, falls, nutrition, diabetes and skin integrity. Care plans generally included people’s histories, communication needs and risk information. Inspectors identified some plans that required updating to reflect changes, such as a person no longer using communal areas as recorded.

People and relatives said assessments usually reflected current needs, and staff involved professionals when changes were identified. Inspectors also found some gaps in recording for specific individuals, including mattress settings, catheter care and hydration monitoring. The provider acknowledged these issues and began addressing them during the inspection.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment in a personalised way or in line with what mattered to them. Inspectors found that several care plans were preformatted and did not fully reflect individual needs or best practice, particularly in areas such as diabetes management, covert medicines, pain assessment and catheter care. Examples included insulin not consistently dated on opening and glucose monitoring devices not undergoing required quality control checks. Although these gaps had not resulted in harm, they meant care was not always aligned with evidence based practice and increased the risk of needs not being fully met.

Despite these shortfalls, staff followed recognised clinical guidance in areas such as pressure care, wound management and infection monitoring. People and relatives expressed confidence in the clinical care provided, and staff sought timely input from external professionals where needed. Staff delivered wound care, repositioning support, hydration and nutrition as required, and people with more complex conditions were supported by relevant specialists.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff worked collaboratively across the service, and inspectors observed effective involvement from GPs, district nurses, physiotherapists and specialist teams. Weekly governance meetings reviewed clinical risks and actions, supporting coordinated care.Relatives described communication as open and responsive, and staff said they could raise concerns directly with team leaders and managers.

Inspectors found occasional gaps in written communication, including handovers and record updates. However, staff demonstrated good awareness of people’s needs, and training and induction supported consistent teamwork.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to maintain good nutrition, hydration and activity levels. Inspectors observed people being offered choice at mealtimes, and relatives said staff encouraged mobility and participation in activities. Activities included group sessions and 1 to 1 support, and relatives spoke positively about the variety offered.

People with specialist conditions, including diabetes and Parkinson’s disease, received input from external professionals, and most relatives felt staff supported stability or improvement. Inspectors found some inconsistencies in hydration and nutrition records, and care plans did not always include detailed clinical instructions.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.The service collected clinical data on falls, wounds, weight, infections and medicines, and reviewed this through monthly governance. This helped identify themes such as falls occurring at specific times, leading to increased checks or environmental adjustments.Relatives reported noticeable improvements in wellbeing following admission, and people accessed therapies where appropriate.

However, inspectors found some audits, such as those for mattress settings, glucose monitoring and pain assessments, did not lead to timely updates in care plans. Although no harm was identified, this reduced assurance clinical monitoring consistently informed care.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and applied its principles in practice. Inspectors reviewed MCA assessments, DoLS authorisations and best interest decisions and found many were appropriate. Covert medication decisions showed good practice, with involvement from GPs, pharmacists and families.

However, some assessments lacked detail about how staff presented information or how they sought people’s views. In several cases, MCA assessments for bed sensors or acoustic monitoring were incomplete or missing. Inspectors also found instances where documentation combined multiple decisions without clearly separating each element, which reduced clarity.People and relatives generally felt staff sought consent respectfully. One relative told us, “They always ask if he wants anything… they are very gentle.” People said staff explained care tasks, and inspectors observed staff giving people reassuring prompts to support understanding.