You are here

Just Call 4 Care Services Requires improvement

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

We are carrying out checks at Just Call 4 Care Services using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 17 November 2016

This inspection took place on 15 August 2016 and was announced. This was the first inspection of this service at the new office address.

The service provided domiciliary care to 85 people in their own homes. There was a registered manager at this location. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was aware of their legal responsibilities and had notified the Care Quality Commission of events they were required to do by law.

Medicines were not managed safely. Staff who supported people to take their medication had not always recoded they had done so, and were not sure of the appropriate action to take in the case of missed medication or recording errors.

The provider had not established adequate quality monitoring processes to identify if the service was meeting people’s needs or how it could be improved. Audits had not always identified when errors in record keeping had occurred. Not all information was reviewed for trends to identify learning opportunities to improve the service.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the report.

Staff we spoke with knew how to recognise the signs of abuse. Care plans identified people’s specific conditions and how staff were to support them to keep them well. When necessary the provider involved and worked with other professionals to meet people’s care needs. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about how to meet the care needs of the people they supported although records were not always available for them to refer to at the persons home.

People told us they were supported when necessary by staff to eat and drink enough to keep them well. However a lack of appropriate recording and auditing meant that people might come to harm by not having sufficient food and drink.

Staff training and supervision made sure that staff were knowledgeable about their role. Recruitment processes ensured that people were supported by staff who were safe and suitable to meet their needs. The registered manager sought people’s views of the service. Senior staff conducted spot checks and observations of how staff supported people.

People were generally supported by the same staff which had helped them to develop positive relationships. Staff knew how people liked to be supported and told us how important it was for them to meet people’s needs well.

People told us that they were asked to consent to their care and were treated with dignity and respect. However where people lacked capacity to make decisions, the provider had not ensured that the service acted in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act within the delivery of the service.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was not always safe.

It was not possible to determine if people had received their medication as prescribed as staff did not always record if people had taken their medication.

People said they felt safe and staff understood what to do if they suspected abuse.

The provider had safe recruitment processes.


Requires improvement

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was not always effective.

The provider had not implemented the Mental Capacity Act when supporting people who may have lacked capacity to make their own decisions.

The registered manager could not be sure that some people were receiving enough food and drink.

People were supported by staff who received regular training and supervision and knew how to meet people’s specific care needs.



Updated 17 November 2016

People felt they were listened to and their choices and preferences respected.

People spoke affectionately about the staff who supported them.

People felt their privacy and dignity was respected and staff encouraged people to maintain their independence.



Updated 17 November 2016

The service was responsive.

People were supported by staff who knew how they wanted to be supported.

The provider had supported people to have staff their choice.

There was a complaints process that people and staff knew about.


Requires improvement

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was not consistently well led.

Systems in place to monitor the quality of the service were not robust or always followed.

There was a registered manager in place who understood their responsibilities.

Not all the people we spoke with expressed confidence in the management team. Staff enjoyed working at the service