The Sycamores and The Poplars

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 54 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not consistently check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. As a result, people’s needs were not always accurately assessed or reflected in their care plans.

Some people required a modified diet, but care plans contained conflicting information about the consistency of food they needed. One person told us they required a pureed diet but had been served a fish pie containing pieces of fish. They said, “I have told them I can’t eat this but haven’t been offered anything else.” This showed staff had not fully understood or acted on the person’s assessed needs.

We reviewed the information held in the kitchen, which the chef used to prepare people’s meals, and found this did not match people’s actual requirements. This inconsistency placed people at risk of harm from choking, particularly those with swallowing difficulties who relied on staff to provide food safely in line with professional guidance.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. While most care plans contained details about how people wished to be supported, people told us staff did not always follow this guidance in practice.

One person said, “They [staff] get me up so early in a morning, usually between 5–6am and I don’t want that, but if I don’t I have to wait until 11 for my care so what choice do I have.” Another person told us, “They [staff] regularly wake me up at 5am and get me dressed, they said it’s because the day staff haven’t got time to do it.” These examples showed staff were making decisions based on routine and staffing pressures rather than people’s assessed needs, preferences or what mattered to them.

This demonstrated that people’s care was not always delivered in line with evidence‑based practice or person‑centred principles. Staff did not consistently work with people to ensure care was planned and delivered in a way that promoted choice, autonomy and wellbeing. As a result, people did not always experience care that reflected their wishes or supported them to live the lives they wanted.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing assessments of needs when people moved between different services, helping ensure care remained coordinated and consistent.

The service worked collaboratively with external professionals, including community nurses, GPs and therapists. Staff sought advice when people’s needs changed and acted on recommendations promptly. We saw examples of people being supported to access GP services, and during the assessment a chiropodist was at the home providing treatment, demonstrating effective partnership working and timely access to healthcare.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, meaning people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not consistently help people to live healthier lives or, where possible, reduce their future need for care and support.

People told us they were not always encouraged or supported to engage in activities that promoted physical or emotional wellbeing. One person said, “I would love to go for a walk outside, maybe even to the library across the road. I miss being outside.” This showed people were not always supported to access the community or take part in activities that mattered to them.

These shortfalls demonstrated that the provider had not ensured people were consistently supported to maintain healthy lifestyles, remain active, or pursue opportunities that could improve their wellbeing and independence.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not consistently ensure that outcomes were positive, reliable or aligned with both clinical expectations and what people themselves wanted to achieve. As a result, people did not always experience care that supported their wellbeing or reduced avoidable risks.

One person required full support from staff with their fluid and nutritional intake, but records showed this support was not consistently offered. Daily documentation demonstrated the person had only been offered 600ml of fluids within a 24‑hour period, which was significantly below recommended levels and placed them at risk of harm from dehydration. This showed staff were not effectively monitoring the person’s needs or taking timely action to prevent deterioration.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person‑centred care and treatment. People were supported to make informed choices, and staff understood the importance of seeking permission before providing care.

During the assessment, we observed staff asking permission before supporting people with their care needs. Staff also requested people’s consent prior to entering their rooms, demonstrating respectful practice and an understanding of people’s right to privacy and autonomy.

People and their relatives told us they were always asked for their consent before any changes were made to their care plans. They said staff explained proposed changes clearly and ensured they understood what was happening and why.

Overall, staff consistently respected people’s rights, involved them in decisions, and delivered care in a way that upheld choice, dignity and control.