Justintime Healthcare

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 stayed the same. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider had a process in place to assess people’s needs prior to them starting to receive a service and used the information to formulate an initial care plan. People and relatives spoke positively about this process. One social care professional told us they were involved in the initial meeting and communication with the provider was good.

The provider did not always planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Most people were involved in planning their care. However, where people required support with their nutrition and hydration needs most care plans lacked detail to support staff to deliver the right care. People and relatives also told us this was an area for improvement and the quality of support from staff, in relation to meal preparation was mixed. The registered manager told us they were currently improving their assessment process to ensure more detailed information was incorporated into people’s care plans.

Some people and relatives said they had been involved initially when their care plan was developed but they had not been involved in reviewing this. Most people and relatives said they did not feel involved in writing their care plan. Comments included, “I do not know about a care plan. I am not involved with this.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

We received some mixed feedback about communication by the provider from stakeholders. The provider worked with other health and social care professionals. For example, one person had a very detailed care plan regarding how to manage their epilepsy, which was regularly reviewed with other key specialist professionals. The provider had made referrals to other agencies to seek enhanced support and guidance. Most staff told us they thought teamwork was effective and staff worked well together.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Improvements were required to some people’s care plans in relation to their health needs. Where people had complex health issues, such as diabetes, care plans lacked detail. Where people received support with social care there was evidence of choice and variety and people being able to access activities and opportunities of their choice to support their health and wellbeing.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider monitored people’s care. Daily records were generally well completed and provided details about the support provided. Where any concerns were identified this was flagged on the electronic system so staff received a clear handover. One person’s quality of life had improved as a result of monitoring and working closely with health professionals in developing a consistent care plan. However, the quality of this was also impacted when call times were inconsistent, as some people said they were waiting for staff to arrive in order for their support to be available.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

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.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. When people receive care and treatment in their own homes an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty.

The provider had systems in place to ensure the service was working within the principles of The Mental Capacity Act.

Staff had received training and demonstrated an understanding of the MCA. Daily records evidenced where staff had offered and encouraged people to accept support but respected their decisions if this was declined. Staff comments included, “I have completed training. I understand service users have freedom of choice, and capacity can fluctuate.”