Sycamore Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The leadership team promoted a strong, positive culture shared across the staff group. Staff consistently described Sycamore Lodge as a welcoming and supportive place to work. One staff member told us, “Worked in 3 care homes previously and this one feels good. Good atmosphere. It is welcoming.” People and relatives repeatedly highlighted kind and compassionate interactions. A relative said, “It’s lovely – an extension of home… so pleasant, friendly and welcoming.” There was a clear emphasis on values of “wellness, happiness and kindness” displayed throughout the service and referenced by managers and staff.

Leaders were visible, knowledgeable, and promoted an inclusive, compassionate culture. Staff consistently praised the registered manager, describing greater stability and improvement: One staff member told us, “[Name registered manager] has changed a lot of things… turned this place around.” Staff said they could suggest ideas and see them implemented, such as more outings. The manager was seeking funding for a bus or working with the local bus operator to support this. Staff also felt included because they received the same bonus as senior leaders.

Relatives found leaders approachable; one said, “The manager is approachable if I complain, it is dealt with immediately.” Senior leaders carried out regular reviews, governance discussions, and quality assurance checks, including 10@10 reviews, walkarounds, and weekly monitoring.

Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and that managers listened, although some reported mixed experiences of responsiveness. One staff member told us, “I can raise things like this in supervision… but sometimes [managers name] doesn’t always listen.” Another staff member described a more positive experience: “Manager is very nice; issues get resolved when things are raised.” The provider’s transparency ethos was evident: The registered manager stated, “We report out of transparency. We tell families if anything goes wrong.”

The service valued diversity and inclusion, employing staff from varied backgrounds and nationalities. Leaders ensured fair recruitment, thorough induction, and robust competency checks. File reviews showed consistent screening, background checks, and right to‑ work‑ verification.Relatives and staff described the team as respectful and culturally sensitive. One relative said, “The staff are aware of his sight and hearing difficulties, they are very gentle with him.” Staff also told us about cultural and international celebration days, which helped bring residents and staff together and strengthen relationships.

Governance processes, although improving, were not consistently effective. Nursing audits had not identified gaps in medicines management, including issues with insulin dating, out of date glucose sticks and incomplete PRN protocols. Care planning quality varied, with examples of outdated or incomplete documentation. Inspectors found mattress settings incorrect for multiple residents and catheter care plans lacking required detail.Leaders acknowledged areas for improvement and were taking action, but oversight was not yet consistently embedded.

The service worked effectively with a wide range of health and community partners, and this collaborative approach had a positive impact on people’s outcomes. Staff and leaders engaged regularly with GPs, district nurses, physiotherapists, Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) services and mental health teams to ensure people received coordinated and timely support. Leaders gave multiple examples of strong partnership working, including effective joint management of Parkinson’s symptoms with specialist teams, close communication with Public Health during infection outbreaks, and regular involvement from community therapy teams to promote mobility and reduce risk of deterioration.

People were supported to remain connected with their local communities, which enhanced their wellbeing and sense of identity. Relatives told us, “I take her to church; staff are cheerful and welcoming,” demonstrating how staff enabled meaningful routines and supported family involvement. The service also hosted physiotherapy students through a local university partnership, which provided direct therapeutic input for people and increased staff capacity during busy periods. Staff and students shared skills and knowledge, which strengthened moving and handling practice, promoted safe mobility and contributed to a reduction in falls. These initiatives showed the provider’s commitment to partnership led care and to improving people’s day to day experiences and outcomes.

Leaders demonstrated commitment to learning and improvement. Staff received feedback from audits, safeguarding themes and lessons learned displayed on boards.
Training was tailored, including Parkinson’s training and dementia specific programmes. However, some care planning and medication practice shortfalls indicated that learning was not yet consistently applied across all teams.