Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Sydenham House Care Home

Sydenham House

High Street, Blakeney, GL15 4EB

Requires improvementpublished 12 December 2023, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Inspectors found gaps in risk assessments and records, medicines management, fire safety and environmental risk controls. People and relatives said they felt safe, and staff responded to concerns and supported people promptly during the visit.
Effective?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so no new rating was given.
Caring?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so no new rating was given. Feedback about staff was positive.
Responsive?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so no new rating was given.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
The provider did not have effective checks to monitor the quality and safety of the home. The management team was aware of the shortfalls and had begun considering improvements, but there was no clear action plan with priorities and timescales.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2023

Sydenham House rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in care records, medicines, the environment and quality checks.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 October 2023. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience observed care, checked the building, spoke with people and relatives, and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.

The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that some risks were not fully assessed or recorded. These included nutrition, moving and handling, night-time support, fire safety, legionella and hazardous substances. Medicines systems and records were also not always safe.

The home had weaknesses in its checks on quality and safety, so some problems had not been identified by the provider. People and relatives said they felt safe, staffing appeared sufficient during the visit, and staff were caring. The rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2018 because of the findings in this focused inspection.

What inspectors praised

  • People felt safe

    People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe in the home.

    “People and their relatives told us they felt safe living at the service.” from the report

  • Staffing

    People and relatives said there were enough staff. Inspectors saw people receiving support without undue delay.

    “During the inspection, we observed people being supported in a timely manner.” from the report

  • Infection control

    Inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention arrangements, including the use of protective equipment and managing infection risks.

    “We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report

  • Positive relationships

    Feedback about the atmosphere, staff and management was positive. The home worked with families and health and social care professionals.

    “The service worked in partnership with people, their families, friends and community health and social care professionals to maintain people's health and well-being and to achieve positive outcomes for them.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Risk assessments

    serious

    Some people's risks were not fully recorded, including nutrition, moving and handling, emotional needs and night-time support. Environmental risks, including legionella, fire safety and hazardous substances, also needed better control.

    “Effective systems had not been fully implemented to assess and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.” from the report

  • Medicines

    serious

    Medicines records were not always signed and checked correctly. There were also gaps in stock checks, as-required medicines guidance, homely remedies and medicines care plans.

    “The provider did not always ensure that people's medicines were managed safely. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report

  • Quality monitoring

    serious

    The provider's audits had not identified important problems with risks, medicines, care records and environmental safety. There was no clear action plan with priorities and timescales.

    “The provider did not operate effective systems to monitor and improve the safety and quality of the service.” from the report

  • Mental capacity records

    needs fixing

    Care records did not always clearly show people's capacity for specific decisions. CQC recommended that the provider review how this was assessed and recorded.

    “We recommended that the provider reviews their systems of assessing and documenting people's capacity related to specific decisions.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done to make sure every resident has up-to-date risk plans for nutrition, moving and handling and night-time support?
  2. 02How are medicines records, stock checks and as-required medicines now being audited?
  3. 03What action has been taken on legionella checks, fire safety records, window restrictors and night-time evacuation support?
  4. 04How will you monitor care records, staff training and equipment service dates, and when will these checks be completed?
  5. 05How are you recording whether each person has capacity to make specific care decisions?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three question ratings were not inspected and the overall rating was calculated using the previous ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Sydenham House

2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. December 2023Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Sydenham House →

  2. February 2021Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. June 2018Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. May 2018

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 May 2018.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Nearby

Other care homes near Blakeney

All in Gloucestershire

Yew Tree House

Blakeney, GL15 · 0.3 km
Good
Residential
Rated 3 years agocare home

Rodley House

Lydney, GL15 · 4.8 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 6 years agocare home

Red House

Cinderford, GL14 · 5.1 km
Good
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home