You are here

Crownwise Limited - Parkview Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 17 April 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 5 and 9 March 2018 and was unannounced.

Crownwise Parkview is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Parkview accommodates up to seventeen people in one large house over three floors, in the London Borough of Lambeth. At the time of the inspection there were 15 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service was inspected previously on 15 and 18 November 2016 and was given an overall rating of ‘requires improvement’. This was because the service failed to provide staff with adequate guidance on how to manage identified risks. The service also failed to ensure staff received adequate support through regular supervisions, annual appraisals and necessary training to enable them to undertake their duties effectively. The service did not have robust systems and processes in place to identify pitfalls in the quality and safety of the service delivery.

At this comprehensive inspection we found the provider had made improvements to the service in relation to risk assessment guidance, staff training, support and auditing processes.

We made a recommendation in relation to the management structure at the service.

Systems and processes in place identified risks and gave staff clear guidance on how to mitigate those risks. Risks were reviewed regularly to identify trends, patterns and positive behavioural plans were then implemented.

People were protected against the risk of harm and abuse. Staff were aware of how to identify, report and escalate suspected abuse and were aware of the provider’s whistleblowing policy.

Staffing levels were adequate in meeting people’s needs and keeping them safe. Staff received support and guidance through regular one to one supervisions and annual appraisals where they reflected on their working practices. Staff received regularly training to increase their skills and knowledge.

People’s medicines were managed safely. Records indicated no errors or omissions. Medicines were stored in line with good practice and stocks and balances showed people received their medicines as prescribed.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. We checked whether the service were supporting people in line with the MCA and found the service was working within legislation.

People’s consent to care and treatment was sought prior to care being delivered. People were supported and encouraged to make decisions relating to their care, and have their decisions respected.

People’s health and wellbeing was monitored and assessed for any signs of deterioration. People had access to a wide range of healthcare professionals as and when required.

People received compassionate and caring support from staff that knew them well and treated them with dignity and respect. People’s right to privacy was adhered to and people had their independence monitored and encouraged.

People continued to receive personalised care, which was responsive to their needs. Care plan reviews were held regularly and where possible people were en

Inspection areas



Updated 17 April 2018

The service was safe. Risk management plans document identified risks and gave staff clear guidance on how to support people safely.

Staff received on-going training in safeguarding, could identify the different types of abuse and how to report suspected abuse in line with the provider's policy.

Accidents and incidents were monitored and appropriate healthcare professionals were informed where required.

People's medicines were administered, recorded and stored appropriately.

The provider had systems and processes in place to safely manage infection control.



Updated 17 April 2018

The service was effective. People received support from staff that underwent regular training to meet their needs.

Staff reflected on their working practices to enhance their skills through supervisions and regular appraisals.

People were not deprived of their liberty unlawfully. The registered manager and staff knew their responsibilities in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation. People's consent to care and treatment was sought and respected.

People had access to sufficient amounts of food and drink.



Updated 17 April 2018

The service was caring. People received support and guidance from staff that knew them well and treated them with respect.

People�s equality, diversity and human rights were encouraged and promoted.

People�s independence was encouraged and support was delivered in line with their dependency needs.

Staff were aware of how to maintain people�s confidentiality. Information was shared only with people who were authorised to have access to it.



Updated 17 April 2018

The service was responsive. People�s care plans were person centred and detailed sufficient information about their life history, health, medical and mental health needs.

People had access to participate in various activities, based both in the community and in-house.

Information was made accessible to people in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

Complaints were managed in a way that sought a positive outcome for all concerned.


Requires improvement

Updated 17 April 2018

The service was not always as well-led as it could be. The registered manager did not always have effective support and time to carry out his role and responsibilities.

The registered manager undertook regular audits of the service to drive improvements. Issues identified were then actioned in a timely manner.

People�s views were sought through quality assurance questionnaires.

The registered manager actively encouraged working in partnership with other healthcare professionals.