Rated Care Homes

Sycamore Lodge

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 9 ratings

    First rated Requires improvement in 2015, most recently Good in April 2026.

  • 6 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 82 of 86

    rated care homes in North Somerset are rated Good, like this one.

Sycamore Lodge: inspection record

Care home with nursing, 78 beds, North Somerset

Rated Good in April 2026.

Sycamore Lodge: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

  1. G
    Handsale Limited - Silver Trees Good, 0.5 miles away
  2. G
    Argentum Lodge Good, 0.9 miles away
  3. G
  4. G
    The Rambles Care Home Good, 1.4 miles away
  5. G
    Harbour Care Centre Good, 3.5 miles away

See all care homes in North Somerset

See all care homes in Nailsea

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 14 April 2026 (assessment visit 30 January 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of assessment 11 February to 4 March 2026. The service provides nursing, residential and dementia care for up to 78 people across 3 floors. At the time of our assessment, 72 people were living at the home, including people living with dementia. We carried out this assessment following safeguarding concerns, which suggested some people may not have been receiving appropriate care.

  • Safe Good
  • Effective Good
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary

Improvements had been made to systems for reviewing records and enhancing information about people’s individual needs since the last inspection. However, these improvements were not yet consistent across all areas, and additional work was needed to ensure sustained and reliable practice.

Sycamore Lodge continued to demonstrate a caring culture, with positive relationships between staff, people and their families, and ongoing improvement supported by stable leadership. People told us they felt safe, well cared for and treated with kindness. We observed compassionate interactions, and staff used people’s life histories to inform daily care, activities and end of life support. Relatives consistently described the home as welcoming, friendly and an extension of family life.

The environment remained clean, safe and well maintained. Staffing levels were generally safe, supported by low agency use, a reliable internal bank and strong recruitment processes. Staff received regular training and competency checks and reported high levels of engagement and pride in their work. Some pressures were noted on the first floor residential unit, including inconsistent engagement during mealtimes; leaders were addressing this through supervision and additional training.

People experienced positive clinical outcomes, supported by effective work with external professionals and daily oversight of key risks such as falls, wounds, infections and unplanned weight loss. However, some aspects of care planning and clinical documentation still required improvement. This included care plans and records relating to catheter care, hydration monitoring, diabetes management, pain assessment and mattress settings. While we did not identify significant harm, inconsistent recording reduced assurance best practice was embedded consistently.

Safeguarding processes were effective, and staff escalated concerns appropriately. Leaders promoted openness and learning from incidents. People were usually involved in decisions about their care; however, documentation relating to some restrictive practices including bed sensors and acoustic monitoring, required clearer mental capacity assessments and best interest decision making.

Overall, Sycamore Lodge provided safe, effective and person centred care, with continued improvements noted. Some further work was required to ensure care plans and clinical records fully supported consistent and high quality practice.

  1. Safe

    Good

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. The provider had strengthened medicines management, including clearer recording of topical creams, and improved care planning for individual needs such as seizure management. Staffing levels and consistency had also improved. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

  2. Effective

    Good

    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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    Good

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

  4. Responsive

    Good

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. Well-led

    Good

    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.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Ask how nursing cover works at night and at weekends.
  2. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
  3. Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.

Registration details

Registered manager
Barry O Driscoll
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service with nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

16 inspection reports, latest 9 July 2022. Latest assessment published 14 April 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Provider
Shaw Healthcare (Nailsea) LimitedBrand: Shaw Healthcare
Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
06181148 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from North Somerset Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Sycamore Lodge provide nursing care?
Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Sycamore Lodge as a care home with nursing.
How many beds does Sycamore Lodge have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 78 beds at Sycamore Lodge.
When was Sycamore Lodge last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Sycamore Lodge was published on 14 April 2026.
Who runs Sycamore Lodge?
Sycamore Lodge is run by Shaw Healthcare (Nailsea) Limited.
What is Sycamore Lodge's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 14 April 2026.