The Sycamores and The Poplars

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not consistently work in partnership with people to decide how to respond to changes in their needs. As a result, people did not always experience care that reflected what mattered to them or supported wellbeing.

Some relatives described finding their loved one in soiled bedding when visiting and said they did not have access to clean laundry due to staffing shortages. One relative told us, “It’s concerning how low standards have got for so few people living at the home. [Name] frequently has no clean clothes and has to wear tops with food down them.” This showed people’s basic care needs were not always met and that staff were not consistently delivering care in a way that upheld people’s dignity or personal preferences.

The registered manager acknowledged previous concerns and had an action plan in place to address improvements which included the recruitment of a domestic team.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined‑up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff worked together to ensure people experienced smooth transitions between different parts of the service and did not have to repeat information unnecessarily. Assessments of people’s needs were shared appropriately, helping maintain consistent support when people moved between teams or accessed external services.

Staff communicated effectively across shifts with daily handover documentation now in place and with external professionals, ensuring care remained coordinated and responsive.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up‑to‑date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Although people’s communication needs were recorded within their care plans, the home environment did not always support people appropriately or help them remain independent.

For example, people living with dementia can struggle to orientate themselves within unfamiliar or complex environments. We observed people asking staff for support because they could not locate the lounge or dining room. The home did not have dementia‑friendly signage to assist people in navigating the environment, which meant people were more reliant on staff and less able to move around independently.

The interim management team did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about care, treatment and support. Relatives consistently told us their concerns had not been listed to or acted upon. The registered manager now acted on concerns raised by people and staff and had established a consistent approach to gaining feedback. Regular check‑ins with people and staff were carried out to ensure improvements were meeting their needs and that any emerging issues were identified early. Staff told us this had strengthened communication and helped create a more open and responsive culture within the home.

The provider understood people’s diverse needs and worked to ensure they could access the care, support and treatment they required when they needed it. Staff were aware of people’s individual circumstances and acted to remove barriers that might prevent them from receiving timely support.

People told us they felt able to ask for help and that staff responded when they needed additional care or reassurance. Staff described how improvements in staffing levels and communication had helped them provide more consistent access to support throughout the day.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in their care, experience or outcomes, and tailored their support in response to this. They demonstrated an understanding of how individual characteristics, backgrounds and circumstances could influence people’s experiences of care, and took steps to ensure support was fair, inclusive and responsive.

While no concerns had been identified at the time of the assessment, staff were knowledgeable about equity and understood how to identify issues that might place people at risk of poorer experiences or outcomes. They described how they would escalate concerns, adapt their approach and work with the registered manager to ensure people received care that met their individual needs.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time and information to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Staff spoke with people about what mattered to them and ensured their wishes were reflected in their care plans.

Care plans included clear information about people’s preferences and needs in an emergency, helping staff respond in a way that respected people’s choices. Where appropriate, people had a ReSPECT form in place that detailed their wishes for treatment and care. The ReSPECT form (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) is a personalised, patient-held document. It guides healthcare professionals on clinical care and resuscitation wishes during a sudden medical emergency if an individual is unable to communicate. These forms were accessible to staff and external professionals, ensuring people’s decisions were understood and followed during urgent situations.