Indiana Health Care Services

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe deployment of staff around missed visits and staff not staying for the time needed to meet people’s needs. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 69 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service had identified they needed an improved IT system to more effectively record and monitor the delivery of the service. This new system had been purchased and was being implemented over the weeks following this assessment.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The service generally worked well with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored. There had been some concerns raised over the months before this assessment took place about the office staff working well with people to ensure their care was delivered well. We were satisfied that where these issues had taken place they were isolated issues and not whole service issues.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

We saw records showing staff had training in Safeguarding, staff told us about this training and that it met their needs. The service had worked effectively with safeguarding processes when necessary.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The service told us they record when relatives have both taken part in face to face care planning reviews, or been invited to take part but could not attend.

Risk assessments were in place for people to guide staff in areas such as falls, healthcare conditions, and psychological safety. People were involved in their risk assessment reviews and relatives were often invited to take part in reviews of people’s care plans.

Two people had risk assessments that showed they had restrictive arrangements in place regarding their safety, which also impacted their legal rights. The service had not recognised the risks with these restrictive situations Both situations were addressed between our first and second visits to the service so we were assured both peoples’ living situations were safe.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Risk assessments were in place for people’s accommodation to ensure a safe working environment for staff to deliver care in. Where people had moving and handling equipment in their homes, the service ensured staff were trained to use this equipment safely.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe staffing deployment around missed visits and staff not staying for the time needed to meet people’s needs. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

Records showed recruitment, training and supervision of staff was taking place as appropriate and systems to deliver these activities were robust and well managed.

We found no evidence that visits were being missed, and records showed there had been no missed visits in 2025. However, the IT system was not clearly recording start and finish times, and so data records could not accurately identify how long visits were taking place. A new IT system was being implemented in the weeks following this assessment, and this would introduce comprehensive recording of start and finish times of visits. Feedback from people and relatives showed some visits were shorter than contracted but many were also longer than the commissioned time. People and relatives did not report anyone’s personal care needs were not being met. There was no systemic issue around visit lengths, and the new IT records system would enable the provider to monitor and audit the length of visits. However, this new system was not yet in place.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff were supplied with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to carry out their roles. For example, there were stocks of PPE in the office and a care staff member collected more supplies of PPE while we were at the service.

All staff had specific infection control training during their induction training process and thereafter on a regular basis.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Where the service was responsible for the administration of peoples'medication, records showed they were given safely and as prescribed. Staff received regular training in the administration of medicines.