Archived: Sycamore Park Care Home

Updated 4 January 2019

This inspection commenced on 22 November 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience on this occasion had experience of working in health and social care. One of the inspectors also visited the home again on 27 November 2018. This visit was announced and was to ensure the manager would be available to meet with us.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed all the information we had about the service including statutory notifications and other intelligence. We also contacted the local authority commissioning and contracts department, safeguarding, infection control, the fire service and Healthwatch to assist us in planning the inspection. We reviewed all the information we had been provided with from third parties to fully inform our approach to inspecting this service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This information was used to help inform our inspection.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who lived in the home. We spent time in the lounge and dining room areas observing the care and support people received. We spoke with 11 people who were living in the home, four relatives and a visiting health care professional. We also spoke with the operations manager, registered manager, deputy manager, two senior carer staff, two care staff, the activity organiser, maintenance person and three staff from the catering and housekeeping team. We reviewed four staff recruitment files, we looked at five people’s care plans in detail and a further two care plans for specific information. We looked also looked at 10 people’s medication administration records and a variety of documents which related to the management and governance of the home. Following the inspection we also received feedback via email form another external healthcare professional.

Updated 4 January 2019

The inspection of Sycamore Park Care Home took place on 22 and 27 November 2018. This is the service’s first rated inspection since their registration with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2017.

Sycamore Park Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Sycamore Park accommodates a maximum of 46 people; there are three separate suites providing accommodation and communal areas located on the ground, first and second floor. The home provides care and support to people who are assessed as having personal care and support needs. The first floor provides accommodation specifically for people living with dementia. There were 44 people living at the home at the time of the inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe. Staff were aware of the importance of reporting any concerns they may have about people’s safety. Risks to people were assessed and reviewed. The premises and equipment were clean and well maintained. Staff had completed fire drills although they had not participated in a simulated evacuation.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. There was a process in place to reduce the risk of employing unsuitable staff. Medicines were stored safely and administered in a caring manner.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

New staff received an induction. There was a programme of training, supervision and appraisal in place to ensure staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. Staff communicated effectively and people had access to other health care professionals when needed.

Meals were home cooked, people could choose what they wanted to eat and were served adequate portions to meet their individual needs. Staff verbally prompted people to eat their meals and supported people to eat where this was needed.

Each suite was nicely furnished and there was access from the ground floor to a secure garden. The suite for people who were living with dementia had limited signage to enable people to orientate themselves to the location of key areas such as the dining room or a toilet.

People told us staff were caring and kind. People were relaxed in staff’s company and we saw only nice, professional interactions between staff and the people they supported. People were supported by staff who knew them well. Staff took steps to ensure people dignity was maintained and respected people’s right to privacy.

There was a range of activities provided for people who lived at the home.

Care records were generated on an electronic system although there were also some paper records. Care plans were not always person centred and where people’s needs had changed, this information was not always easily seen. Improvements were needed to the quality of moving and handling information. Action was taken at the time of the inspection by the registered manager to address this.

Advance care planning around people’s end of life care wishes were not always in place.

We have made a recommendation about improvements to record keeping.

People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager. Staff felt listened to and supported by the management team.

There was a programme in place to ensure regular audits were completed on various aspects of the service. Where concerns were identified, we saw these had been addressed. However, we have made a recommendation about improving the auditing system.

There was a system in place to gather feedback from people and staff. Regular meetings were held and a quality survey had recently been distributed to people.