For support coordination

Coordination is a caseload. It is not a roster with fewer shifts.

Coordinators get measured on things a rostering tool cannot see: whether the plan is actually being used, whether the follow-up happened, and whether any of that can be shown to somebody at review.

If this is your week

  • Underspend discovered at review, when there is no time left to use it
  • Follow-up living in somebody's personal spreadsheet
  • Referrals arriving as email and staying there

A board for the caseload

Your participants, what is outstanding against each of them, and the case notes recording it — laid out as a caseload, rather than as a list of records you have to remember to go and open.

Plan budgets that speak up early

Funding lines track what has been used as it is delivered, so underspend surfaces while there is still plan left to spend and over-servicing is flagged before the line runs dry. At review, neither is news.

Check-ins that leave something behind

A participant check-in is recorded against them and against their goals, so the evidence that coordination happened piles up while you work — instead of being assembled in the week before a review.

Referrals land in the system, not the inbox

Referrals arrive into a tracked intake and carry straight through to the participant record they turn into. Nothing has to be copied across, which is where referrals normally go missing.

Why this one matters here

Proving coordination happened is a question, not a search

Because notes attach to the participant and to the goal rather than sitting in a free-text field, what you did and why is answerable at review without reading twelve months of entries. It is the same property that lets an evidence pack be assembled on demand.

If some of this is you too.

Most providers are more than one of these, which is exactly why it is one system and not four.

Or read it job by job.

Set it up the way you actually work.

Try it free — up to 5 people