• Care Home
  • Care home

Holmlea Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

48 Linskill Terrace, North Shields, Tyne and Wear, NE30 2EW (0191) 257 2407

Provided and run by:
Parkside Care Limited

Assessment report published 4 September 2026

On this page

Effective

Good

16 August 2026

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

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Assessing needs

Score: 3

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 3

Staff planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 3

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Supporting people to live healthier lives

Score: 3

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 3

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff told people about their rights around consent and respected their rights. Capacity assessments and ‘best interest decisions’ were in place. However, we found these were not consistently in place for restrictions including community access, management of finances and other limitations on people’s freedom. People who had capacity had not always signed records to demonstrate they had consented to restrictions that affected them, such as requiring staff support when leaving the service. The management team acknowledged these issues and took immediate action to address them.