Craven Intermediate Care service

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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.Staff and leaders demonstrated a positive and open learning culture. They routinely reviewed accidents and incidents, even though these were rare, and used oversight tools and trackers to identify learning and prevent recurrence. Monthly monitoring identified themes, and reflective practice was used when medication administration errors or recording gaps occurred. Leaders ensured learning was shared through team meetings, regular supervision and two‑way communication systems, helping staff remain up to date. Staff described feeling supported and able to raise concerns, with one saying, “Managers would definitely listen and act.”

The provider 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 had safe and structured processes for managing people’s transitions, particularly during reablement. Staff collaborated with GPs, occupational therapists and social workers to support joined‑up care and were responsive when incidents occurred, so people received timely health or social care input. Twice‑weekly meetings supported monitoring of progress and goals.

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.People were protected from abuse and neglect. Staff understood safeguarding and their responsibilities, supported by training and supervision. Leadership maintained a safeguarding log and confirmed there had been no safeguarding incidents in the last two years. People consistently said they felt safe, including comments such as, “I definitely felt safe,” and “Of course I feel safe.” Staff used appropriate reporting channels, and the service maintained clear oversight systems to monitor concerns. These processes ensured effective safeguarding practice.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.Risks were managed in a proportionate and person‑centred way. Care plans included detailed risk assessments which reflected people’s needs, such as falls, environmental safety and medication risks. Staff involved people in decision making and regularly reviewed goals through reablement trackers. People told us staff supported them to regain independence to manage their injury. People said staff discussed their preferences, respected their property and provided reassurance. These practices enabled people to understand and manage risks confidently.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.Staff understood how to identify hazards during home visits, and risk assessments were in place for environmental safety for every case reviewed. There were detailed environmental risk assessments completed and ongoing reviews ensured environments remained appropriate for people’s needs.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.There were enough staff to provide safe care, and people consistently reported good staffing levels. Staff stated they worked well together and supported each other across different localities. People said staff stayed the full duration of visits and did not rush them. Safe recruitment processes were followed with full mandatory checks. Staff received regular supervision and felt valued and supported. Leaders monitored staff timekeeping through digital systems and acted promptly on any issues. Staff were fully trained and there were checks in place to ensure training was up to date. People consistently reported that staff attended reliably, with one saying, “They [staff] are always spot on with their timekeeping.” Digital call‑monitoring systems flagged lateness and ensured oversight. These arrangements helped people move safely between hospital and home.

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 followed infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures and people consistently reported staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately, including gloves and disposable aprons. One person told us, “They [staff] wear all the PPE.” Annual PPE and handwashing competency checks were completed by leaders, and all staff received an IPC handbook. Staff adhered to safe practices when visiting people's homes and maintained good standards across the service.

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. Medicines were managed safely. Medication was administered by trained staff who understood safe practice, and audits identified improvements and actions taken. People who self‑managed their medicines said staff checked they had taken them when required. Where medication was administered by staff, records were complete and accurate. The system flagged any potential errors, and reflective learning was used to prevent recurrence. These processes ensured safe medicines support.