Just Call 4 Care Services

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (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’s system and processes for assessing and reviewing people’s health, care and wellbeing were not robust. Care plans were not always person centred and some lacked detail about how a person should be supported safely and also how they should be supported with some health conditions.

The provider conducted assessments to understand if they could support people prior to accepting new packages of care safely. We asked about specific training that should be provided to staff so they could support a person’s specific health needs. We were told conflicting information from the nominated individual and registered manager about this training. Initially we were told staff had not been trained and in response to our concerns training was arranged to take place. However, we were told after the inspection that staff had completed this training in 2024. It was a concern that the management team were not aware of this, and training records had not been updated to confirm the training had been completed.

The provider had a process for reviewing people’s care plans, but this was not always effective. During our inspection the provider told us they were reviewing one of the care plans we had requested to look at. They sent us the updated version on 23 July 2025. We raised some concerns with the provider during our second site visit on 19 August 2025 about inconsistencies and contradictory information regarding the role of staff when supporting the person with eating and drinking. The provider told us the information in the updated care plan they had sent us, was still not accurate. It remained unclear how some risks were managed for this person and also raised concern about the effectiveness of the provider’s care plan reviewing process.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. A person’s care records did not provide clear guidance for staff to follow in accordance with International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) guidance. A training needs analysis had not been completed, and staff had not received all the training needed to meet people’s need safely in line with Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance on moving and handling in health and social care. Clear information was not recorded regarding a person at risk of choking. Daily records contained limited information about people’s response to care which made ongoing monitoring of people’s wellbeing more difficult.

Most people told us they were provided with care and support which met their needs and expectations, and some people spoke highly of the regular care staff that supported them.

The service had worked across other teams and services to support people. Most regular staff knew the people they were supporting well. The provider had the systems in place to ensure all staff had an induction into their role and training was provided.

However, some people and some relatives shared with us their concerns about new staff or when they had a change of staff. They told us staff did not seem trained to support them. Some people told us staff would not have read their care plan. We shared these concerns with the provider. The provider told us all staff were trained and supervised in their role.

The process in place to ensure lessons learnt from incidents was not always robust. However, and we could see that the provider was making improvements to this system when we returned for day 2 of the inspection.

Records of people’s care visits pointed towards potential concerns regarding the punctuality, duration and staffing of these. The provider had a system for monitoring calls, but this was not always robust. It was difficult for us to establish what the impact had been for some people. The provider told us they were making improvements to the oversight of care calls.

The registered manager told us hospital passports (or health and care passports) were not in place for people they supported with a learning disability because there was a risk this information could be misplaced. These documents are good practice for people with a learning disability and autistic people to have a health and care passport which can be regularly updated in response to changes in their health and wellbeing.

We could not be assured people were receiving consistent support to improve their health and well-being. Most people managed their own healthcare needs with support from their families. Most staff knew people well and were able to describe what actions they would take if someone required healthcare support. However, care plans lacked personalised detail to guide staff in understanding people’s specific healthcare needs or how to recognise signs that a person may be unwell, to ensure timely and appropriate responses to changes in people’s healthcare. This included the support people needed with diabetes, epilepsy and the management and prevention or sore skin. Records did not always provide sufficient information for staff on their role in helping the relevant person to manage these conditions. Guidance was not always available to guide staff for what to look for and what action to take should someone’s health decline. Daily records were not always detailed and did not ensure people’s wellbeing was monitored effectively.

The provider’s systems to monitor and improve outcomes for people required further development. People’s care plans were not being robustly audited to ensure risks were assessed and mitigated. We could not be assured people’s needs were always accurately monitored, or concerns were escalated to professionals in a timely manner. Lack of effective systems to provide oversight could result in themes and trends not being identified and missed opportunities to improve service delivery.

People’s care plans contained some information about the type of decisions they were able to make. Staff had completed Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) training. Staff were aware of the importance of giving people time to make their own decisions where possible.

A person told us, “Staff always tell me what they are doing.” A staff member told us they always seek a person’s consent before providing care.