Just Call 4 Care Services

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. The management team had not always understood the principles of good quality assurance, and quality assurance processes were not always effective. The provider told us they were developing their systems and more robust audits were in the process of being implemented for better oversight and there would be clearer roles within the management team. The provider told us people and their relatives were given a copy of their statement of purpose, which includes the providers vision and strategy.

Most staff were complimentary about the support they received from the management team. Staff told us meetings took place, and they had the opportunity to speak up. Most people and relatives told us that staff were kind and caring.

There was a clear organisational structure in place and the registered manager and nominated individual worked very closely together and had worked at the service for a long time. Staff spoke positively about the support they received to carry out their role.

Different members of the management team completed audits and checks on the service; however, these had not always identified issues, concerns or priorities for the quality of the service, and had not always demonstrated insight into the issues affecting the quality of the service. The management team told us they would be taking steps to make improvements.

The provider told us they fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider had whistleblowing policies and procedures which staff had access to. Some staff we spoke with had limited understanding of the whistleblowing process. However, staff told us they felt able to raise any concerns with the senior care staff and they were confident action would be taken.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff were provided with training on equality, diversity and inclusion as part of their induction. Staff told us they felt welcomed at the service and there were equal opportunities for all.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

Audits in place were not always completed effectively to identify risks or shortfalls, including the issues we identified during the inspection. Quality assurance systems and processes had not ensured staff were always provided with sufficient and clear information on people’s known health needs and conditions. People’s care plans and risk assessments lacked robust information. Staff had not received the appropriate training. Medicine audits had not identified that robust records were not in place detailing people’s medicine needs. Safeguarding oversight was not robust. The systems in place for the oversight and scrutiny of care calls, to ensure people received consistent and reliable support from staff were not robust and did not enable the provider to respond to some queries we raised. Alerts on the provider’s system had not always been followed up on. There was no clear oversight of call monitoring.

Following our feedback the management team started to make improvements. This included arranging face to face staff training in moving and handling and epilepsy training; implementing staff competency assessments; improving the overview of safeguarding records and improving the audit system for care calls so an analysis of care call outcomes was available, and a record available of how alerts on their own call system were responded to.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The service worked with some healthcare professionals to make sure people’s needs were met.

A healthcare professional told us, “The dealings I had with Just Call 4 Care Services were overall positive. They responded quickly to any queries I may have had and I received no negative feedback from people who were using their service.” Another health care professional told us, “My experience with them was positive. I found the managers to be responsive, flexible, and supportive. The team picked up a package of care quickly for me. They were quick to carry out a risk assessment and commence the service. I felt the communication was very good.”

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation. Although people and relatives raised concerns, especially about the training and support of new care staff, we also received some positive feedback from people and relatives. The provider was also able to share with us how they had captured examples about when they felt they had gone above and beyond in providing a service to people. The provider also told us about initiatives to bring people who they support together in a social forum and the provider was keen to look at ways to support people who may be isolated or lonely.

A relative told us, “They come out from the office a couple of times a year to see [Person’s name] and they phone up occasionally and ask if everything is OK. We've had no concerns and everything is spot on.” Another relative told us, “We have one staff member who comes twice a day, and they are a gem.”

However, it was not always clear how the registered manager and provider had used their own audits and collective problem solving to continuously improve the service. The provider’s systems and processes for assessing and monitoring the safety and quality of people’s care were not always robust or effective. Our inspection identified 3 breaches of the regulations, including a breach relating to good governance.

The service supported a small number of people with a learning disability and autism. The provider was aware of specific guidance including Right support, right care, right culture and staff had received specific training so they could support people.