Craven Intermediate Care service

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.Staff consistently described the culture as supportive and improvement‑focused. They spoke about real‑time notes, shared goals and digital records that helped everyone deliver consistent care, saying the system was, “factual and everyone can see it, the plans are at my fingertips.” Staff said there was a focus to reduce duplication and improve outcomes for people.People’s feedback showed a strong culture of kindness and purpose. The shared ethos was evidenced through close relationships with health partners who said the team was “amazing,” worked hard and consistently put people at the centre of the service.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.Staff said managers were approachable, supportive and acted when issues were raised. One staff member said, “I have a good rapport with the manager.” Another said managers were “brilliant, always available and supportive.”Leaders modelled compassion and recognised achievement. Staff told us the registered manager celebrated successes and made staff feel valued, which contributed to high morale.Professionals confirmed leaders were credible and collaborative, stating there were “excellent working relationships” and highlighting the manager’s openness and willingness to work together to solve issues.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.Staff said they would be listened to and that managers were approachable and responsive to concerns raised. Staff described a culture where discussions in supervision, team meetings and ad‑hoc conversations were encouraged, supporting open communication.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.The service was accessible and inclusive, tailored to individual needs. Staff told us they could request support and learning opportunities to support their confidence and wellbeing. Staff reported supportive supervision arrangements which considered their welfare and development.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.Audits were completed regularly and demonstrated robust oversight, including medication audits, care plan audits, PPE and IPC competency checks, and monthly monitoring of incidents and adverse events. Where audits identified actions, these were recorded with outcomes tracked to completion. Staff confirmed audits were used to support improvement and share learning.Governance arrangements were supported by structural elements such as weekly managers’ meetings, provider‑wide meetings and bi weekly professionals’ meetings, ensuring oversight remained strong and sustainable.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.Staff worked closely with GPs, occupational therapists, social workers and wider health teams. One professional described they had an “excellent working relationship” with the service and said the staff and management were “amazing” and always kept people at the centre of decisions. People told us the joined‑up approach helped them regain confidence and independence. One person said staff worked “very well” with multiple multidisciplinary teams and contributed effectively to their rehabilitation journey.Staff also described close partnership working across the geographic area, supporting workload management and ensuring people received consistent care.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.There was a formal service improvement plan with actions, timescales and staff involvement to drive progress. Leaders sought anonymous staff feedback to identify areas for development, including training needs, and ensured medication competencies were refreshed where necessary.