Justintime Healthcare

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has stayed the same. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care records did not always reflect their individual needs. Whilst there were some examples of detailed care plans and information about people’s personal preferences, most care plans lacked a good level of person-centred information. Overall people and relatives told us they were happy with their care.

The provider had an action plan in place to ensure care plans were developed to become more person-centred.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Whilst we found some improvements were required to care plans, the provider demonstrated an understanding of people’s diverse needs. One person was supported by staff with regular social outings and they told us this helped them feel a part of the local community. Another person was supported by only female staff who were fluent in their preferred language.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

People and relatives had access to a detailed service user guide, which gave them information about the service and relevant contact details. A relative told us they observed a staff member taking the time to talk with their relative, who struggled with hearing, by going closer rather than raising their voice. Where people required communication aids such, as hearing aids and glasses, care records detailed how staff offered support. Where required information was made available to people in an easy read format, including symbols.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There was a system in place to respond to concerns and complaints. People and relatives told us they had regular contact from the provider asking about their views. Some relatives and people referred to the registered manager by name, and said they had regular contact with them. People felt listened to by staff. Comments included, “They are all lovely, we have a laugh and they listen to me.” The provider told us they had recently increased the frequency of seeking feedback from people and relatives.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider was aware of inequalities people receiving support may face. There were systems in place to consider and act on people’s experiences in care, when needed. People and relatives did not raise any concerns about access to other health professionals.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

We found some people, particularly those who were living in more rural areas had experienced inconsistencies around call times, in part due to the travel time involved by staff. The provider told us they had supported several staff to drive which would ensure improvements were made.

The registered manager told us care was planned in consultation with people and reasonable adjustments were made to ensure people’s individual needs were met. For example, one person’s call times had been changed to support them with their medication. They demonstrated they were aware of the potential inequalities people could face.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The provider was not currently supporting anybody who was at the end of their life. Staff had received training on how to support people, should this change. The registered manager told us they would work very closely with relevant health professionals in the event they began supporting a person at the end of their life.