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

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

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. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At the previous assessment, the service was found to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment. At this assessment, we found the service is no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Processes for investigating, analysing, and responding to accidents, incidents, complaints, and safeguarding alerts were in place. Incidents were entered into the electronic care management system and triaged by the manager and clinical lead, who then completed a root cause analysis. This was shared with staff for their learning. People and their relatives were encouraged and supported to raise concerns and knew who to contact if they had any issues. One person told us, “The manager is always in touch, and I can generally have a word with her or any other of the staff.” Trends and themes were identified and risk mitigation measures put in place. For example, where there was a cluster of early morning falls, a senior manager visited in the early morning to observe the care people received. We were told the outcome of this was to review the way in which the night shift was managed. Staff told us, “When something happens, the manager looks into the reasons why that happened,” and “When residents have a fall we try look out for what has caused it. For example, from bed or chairs, if they are too high, we have to get low beds and chairs.”

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.People were supported by staff who were aware of the signs of abuse and knew how to report safeguarding concerns. Relatives told us, “The home feels safe and I appreciate the effort put into this.” Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and harm. They received training and knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and how to report these. Staff were confident their managers would take any concern seriously. Staff told us, “If someone was abused I would inform the nurse deputy manager or manager. I’d call someone like yourselves (CQC) if I needed to go further,” and “Safeguarding is protecting those vulnerable to harm from staff or an organisation. I would speak to my line manager if I needed to report.” They also told us they were confident the management team would address any concerns regarding people’s safety and well-being and make the required referrals to the local authority. Where people required any deprivation of liberty in order to keep them safe, the provider had applied for lawful authorisation from the local authority. Information about deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) was clearly recorded in people’s care records. The manager maintained a record of all DoLS applications which alerted them to when a person’s DoLS was due for renewal. We saw best interest decisions were recorded where decisions were made about restrictive practices. For example, we saw a person’s mental capacity was assessed and a best interest meeting was held with their family which considered the least restrictive options to ensure their safety. The senior management team recently led a review to ensure all capacity assessments relevant to the person were in place. We saw mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place where medicines were administered covertly. Staff understood people’s capacity to make decisions about their care and support and used people’s preferred method of communication to act according to their wishes.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risks associated with people’s individual care needs had been assessed and were regularly reviewed. This included the risk of developing pressure sores, mobility and falls. Where risks were identified, a care plan and risk assessment were developed so staff knew what action to take to reduce any risk of harm. Risk assessments were person-centred and gave guidance to staff about how to manage a people’s risks. For example, where a person was at high risk of falls, their falls risk assessment outlined the equipment and level of staff support they required to maintain their day to day safety, as well as for times when their ability fluctuated. Records showed where people required to be supported with repositioning to prevent pressure sores, these were accurate and up to date. People had been provided with equipment such as specialist mattresses, bedside crash mats and sensor alarms to mitigate risks. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s identified risks and told us that they received training in a range of areas including moving and handling. A staff member told us, “There are residents here who are at risk of falls and you encourage them to stand and help them to stand, I stay close to support them.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People lived in a service which was maintained and designated staff completed regular checks on the physical environment and equipment to minimise the potential for harm. Equipment was serviced and checks were undertaken on electrical items, moving and handling and fire safety equipment to ensure that it was safe to use. Personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPS) outlined the levels of support people required in the event of an emergency. Regular fire safety checks and evacuation tests were carried out. The responsible Fire and Rescue service completed a fire risk assessment in September 2024 and confirmed that no significant actions were required. An independent fire risk assessment commissioned by the provider took place in April 2025. Fire safety measures within the home were deemed as very good. Staff training and knowledge in fire procedures, as well as their awareness of people’s safety in the event of a fire was deemed as excellent. In response to suggested minor improvements made by the independent assessor, the provider developed a fire risk assessment plan to address these, with a target completion date of July 2025. This was an area of improvement identified from our last inspection.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. There were systems in place to ensure staffing levels met the changing needs and number of people who lived in the home. People’s dependency levels were assessed and regularly reviewed. However, we observed that all care staff went on a mid-morning break at the same time, which left one non-care member of staff in the communal area. We raised this matter of staff deployment with the leadership team and were assured that in future, staff breaks will be staggered. People and their relatives told us, “There is the same core group of staff here since [person] has been at the home. They refer to all residents by their first names, and have a grasp of who they are.” Another said, “Staff seem to understand people’s personalities and needs.” Staff told us that they had the time they needed to meet people’s needs, “We do have enough staff, mostly fulltime staff but if we need more they call agency, we’ve never been short on shift,” and “There is enough staff, it has always been like that. We work as a team and I think people have the right skills.” Staff attended an induction when they joined the team and had access to relevant ongoing training. One member of staff told us, “I’ve had a lot of online training. I’m hot on care so if I see something which needs doing I let [manager] know.” We observed staff supported people to transfer safely in a hoist, from their wheelchair to a chair. Staff were recruited safely and records evidenced that checks were undertaken prior to new staff commencing employment.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The service was clean and well maintained. Regular checks and audits were completed to ensure staff followed the provider’s infection prevention and control (IPC) policies to keep people safe and the service clean. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available, we observed staff used and disposed of PPE and soiled linen appropriately. We saw that cleaning schedules were completed and regular audits were carried out. Hand hygiene stations were well-maintained and correct waste management procedures were observed. A relative told us, “It is always very clean and there are no unpleasant smells anywhere.” Staff received training in infection prevention and control and had a good understanding of IPC principles and followed correct procedures. They told us, “We have regular hand hygiene training,” and “We have enough PPE. Any problems we tell the nurse.” This was an area of improvement identified from our last inspection.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Records showed medicines were administered as prescribed. All medicines were stored safely and securely, with no excess medications observed in communal areas or people’s rooms. Stock control measures were in place to prevent accumulation of expired or discontinued medicines. The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Where medicines were given covertly, the provider ensured the correct process was followed in line with people’s best interest. The management team completed medicines audits regularly to identify any errors or poor practice and any shortfalls were addressed. Protocols for 'as required' (PRN) medicines such as pain relief medicines were in place, regularly updated and the reason for administration recorded. Staff who administered medicines completed all required training and those whom we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of medicines procedures. However, some documentation in relation to competency assessments for 2 members of staff who administered medicines was incomplete. We spoke with the provider about this on the day and CQC received appropriately completed documentation for these members of staff the following day.