Parkside Nursing Home Also known as Part of the abbey total care group ltd group of services

Updated 9 July 2026

We undertook an assessment of Parkside Nursing Home between 20 August and 2 September 2026. We visited the service on 20 August 2026. Parkside Nursing Home is a nursing and residential care home providing support to older people, younger adults, people living with dementia and people living with a physical disability, some of whom also had nursing needs. There were 29 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

The previous inspection took place in November 2025, and breaches of regulation were identified in relation to the assessment of risk to people’s wellbeing and safety, the cleanliness of the service, staffing levels, people’s rights not being respected and the overall governance of the service. We undertook this inspection to check if the provider had made the necessary improvements.

Although improvements had been made, we found a breach of regulation relating to governance. This demonstrated a lack of effective oversight and assurance that people's health, safety and welfare were consistently protected.

We identified a number of shortfalls in the management of medicines, which increased the risk that people may not always receive their medicines safely and as prescribed.

Although most people told us they felt safe, risks were not always effectively managed. Four of the seven people we spoke with said they regularly waited a long time for support, and a relative described delays that had resulted in continence incidents, impacting people's dignity and wellbeing.

We identified some exposed pipes and broken tiles which presented a risk to people’s safety. This was addressed promptly after the inspection.

Although effort had been made to develop the environment to meet the needs of people with dementia, such as signage, colour contrast, pictorial boards, posters and pictures, the environment in the lounge was at times chaotic and did not always support a person-centred approach.

The provider's governance and monitoring systems were not always effective and had failed to identify and address several of the concerns found during this assessment. This meant opportunities to reduce risks and improve the quality and safety of care had been missed.

There were good systems to protect people from the risk of infection and cross contamination, and staff followed good practice. The home was clean and well-maintained. There were systems in place for the safe recruitment of staff. People and their relatives were involved in their pre-admission assessment, care planning and the management of individual risks. Staff received regular training and had their competencies assessed. People’s end of life wishes had been considered and documented if they were comfortable discussing these. Overall, staff spoke favourably of the management team and felt listened to and consulted.

Updated 9 July 2026

Overall, people told us they were happy living at the service and were treated with kindness by the staff. Their comments included, “I think they’re very good. There are enough but they’re running like little bumble bees” and “They’re ok at what they do.” A relative agreed and said, “They’re brilliant, so patient and they know when to leave [family member] alone which is important... [Family member] has not had any falls or anything, they are brilliant.”

People told us there were usually enough staff available to care for them although some said they sometimes had to wait for support. Their comments included, “I press my buzzer when I’m in my room and in here (lounge) when I need the toilet and they don’t come, they tell me to wait. I do have an accident and I can’t help it, it upsets me”, “They take a long time to come and see you. If I press the buzzer it takes half an hour”, and “They’re short staffed. Getting up in the morning, sometimes I have to wait up to 2 hours. They come in and wake you up at 6am but don’t get you up until 8.”

People were not always supported in a person-centred way. Many people spent extended periods sitting in armchairs with limited meaningful occupation or engagement including eating their lunch there. Apart from occasions where they were supported with personal care, these long periods of inaction posed a risk to people’s wellbeing as well as their skin integrity.

During lunchtime, the staff supported people in a task-centred manner, lining up in a queue to receive people’s lunches from a trolley and delivering these to people. We did not observe people being asked if they wanted these, or being shown what options were available. Because of the layout of the lounge, where chairs were placed in rows, staff were not able to sit beside people to support them, therefore, some staff sat in front of them and others leaned over them. The layout did not support people to engage with one another and did not promote a person-centred environment.

Activities were delivered in a busy and noisy environment, which made it difficult for some people to engage and prevented others from enjoying a peaceful environment. During the activity session we observed, the TV was on and music was playing, which contributed to a stressful environment.

People told us they felt safe with the support they received and felt able to raise any concerns openly. People were involved in planning their own care and described staff as caring and responsive.