Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust

Updated 18 June 2026

Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust provide a range of acute and community-based services, including emergency care and emergency surgery; elective surgery in many specialties; maternity and cancer services. The trust employs over 7000 staff and provides services across both Calderdale and Greater Huddersfield.

The community health services include community nursing, occupational and physiotherapy, community dental services, speech and language therapy and palliative care.

Inpatient services are provided from Huddersfield Royal Infirmary and Calderdale Royal Hospital which have over 780 beds. The trust also provides community services in the Calderdale area with more than 369,000 adult services contacts by community teams in the previous year and more than 230,000 contacts with the trust therapy teams in the same period.

The trust saw over 103,000 inpatient admissions over the previous year. There were also over 490,000 outpatient attendances in the same period. There were almost 185,000 accident and emergency attendances and 4,200 babies delivered in the same period.

We carried out an unannounced assessments of Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust on 12 January – 5 March 2026. We carried out this assessment in response to information of concern. As well as the trust-level assessment, we assessed the following service groups:

• Community health services for adults
• Community health services for children, young people and families
• Medical care (including older people’s care)
• Outpatients
• Urgent and emergency care

Overall, the trust was rated as good for the well led key question.

We undertook a trust-level assessment (well-led review) of the trust which included an on-site visit on 2 – 5 March 2026. Prior to the assessment we observed the trust’s board and quality committee meetings on 15 January and 3 February 2026. We also asked the trust’s partners for feedback.

We assessed all eight of the quality statements in the well-led key question used when assessing an NHS trust in the Single Assessment Framework. The trust-level assessment followed several assessments of the trust’s assessment service groups (frontline services) in January and February 2026. We undertook these assessments to ensure we had a thorough understanding of the full range of services provided by the trust ahead of our trust-level assessment.

We found positive findings within all eight quality statements. We identified areas which did not breach regulation but were areas for improvement within learning and innovation.

The assessment team included a CQC deputy director, operations manager, senior specialist, inspector, regulatory co-ordinator, regulatory officer, an executive reviewer and specialist professional advisors with experience of working in the assessment service groups we assessed, or with experience as senior leaders in the NHS.

We assessed quality statements within the well led key question. Each quality statement assessed is awarded a score. Details on how we score can be found on our website: https://www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/how-we-do-our-job/ratings

You can find further information about we carried out our assessments at: https://www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/how-we-do-our-job/what-we-do-inspection

Updated 19 January 2026

We carried an announced inspection of community health services for adults at Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust (CHFT) on the 23 to 25 February 2026, as part of our continual checks on the safety and quality of healthcare services.

We visited Brighouse Health Centre, Allan House, Broad Street Plaza and Dean Clough Mills, which are community bases and sit within the location of Huddersfield Royal Infirmary (Trust headquarters). Within the sites we inspected the services below: -

• District nursing services at Brighouse Health Centre, Allan House and Dean Clough Mills in Halifax
• Cardiac rehabilitation service
• Parkinsons disease service
• Self-administration of medicines service
• Speech and language therapy team (SALT)
• Tissue viability nursing team
• Hospital at Home nursing team
• Bladder and bowel service
• Quest for quality in care homes service - Matrons.
• Respiratory service

During the inspection CQC Inspectors and specialist advisers reviewed patients’ care and treatment records. We attended 21 home visits with district nurses and respiratory nurses, including observing medication administration. We carried out health and safety checks of the environment at each site we visited. Handover meetings were observed, including a patient safer staffing and Band 7 staff meeting. We spoke with 45 staff members, which included the Director of Operations, Associate Director of Nursing and Head of Nursing for Community, Human Resources, Community Matrons, Team Leaders, Community Therapy Team, District Nurses, Nurse Specialists, Healthcare Assistants, Telephone Adviser and Non-clinical Staff.

We previously inspected community health services for adults in March 2016. We rated the effective key question as requires improvement. This was due to a lack of comprehensive performance data, the absence of standardised guidance for staff, and inconsistent access to clinical supervision. The safe, caring, responsive and well led key questions were rated as good. Our overall rating was good.

Following this inspection, our rating for effective has improved, and is now good. At our last inspection, we rated the safe, caring, responsive and well led key questions as good. At this inspection, the ratings remain the same. The overall rating remains good.

Safe

Staff felt safe to raise concerns. Incidents were investigated, and people were protected through effective risk management. Facilities and equipment were clean, well-maintained, and met service needs. Managers mostly ensured staff received regular training and appraisals to support high-quality care. Systems were in place to identify and respond to any safeguarding concern. However, further work was required to embed the new supervision guidance.

Effective

Staff ensured care and treatment was evidence-based and aligned with best practice. They worked collaboratively across agencies to support positive outcomes and smooth transitions of patients between services. Staff ensured patients understood their care and treatment, enabling informed consent.

Caring

Patients feedback demonstrated they were treated with respect. Staff supported individual preferences and helped patients have a choice in their care. Privacy was protected, and staff wellbeing was actively supported.

Responsive

The community health services for adults monitored patients’ specific needs and responded with specific services, care and treatment. The services had ensured staff understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Well led

Leadership was visible, knowledgeable, and supportive. Staff felt safe to give feedback. Roles and responsibilities were well understood. Managers engaged with the local community to improve care and welcomed innovation. Leaders used reliable data on risk, performance, and outcomes. Governance processes were mostly well-established, with accessible policies and procedures. The leaders demonstrated they had a commitment to improvement and innovation.

Updated 15 August 2016

• The trust had established risk reporting structures in place. Incidents were investigated and reported in line with policy. We saw evidence of the service sharing learning with staff. Staff were knowledgable and experienced in safeguarding children and recognising risk. There were safeguarding systems in place to protect children and young people from harm.

• Staffing levels were appropriate for services provided and were in line with commissioned levels. There had been problems of recruitment in childrens therapy services. The risks had been mitigated by temporary actions.

• Staff had received mandatory training at trust level of expectation. There was a broad understanding of the duty of candour and some staff had received training.

• Staff practiced evidence based care and treatment. There was good evidence of multi- disciplinary working within the trust and with external agencies. Staff were aware of the principles of consent and we observed them practising it in their work. There were clear and accessible routes into other services. Some staff reported that the transition between health visiting services and school nursing was not as smooth now that this service was under the umbrella of a social enterprise company.

• The trust was meeting recognised targets set by NHS England for this year and it’s Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) target for breastfeeding post delivery. However this figure decreased significantly on discharge from maternity care. The service had identified this issue and mitigating actions were being taken to address them.

• There were good appraisal rates throughout the service and systems in place to identify dates of reappraisal.

• We spoke with children and their families, and observed care taking place. We found evidence that staff practiced compassionate care and provided emotional support. People who used the service told us that they felt involved with their care. They had understood the care and advice offered to them.

• The trust planned and delivered services that met peoples needs and were responsive to the changing needs of the population. We saw evidence of innovation in care to meet the needs of the local population and hard to reach groups. This included one health visitor who services for parents who misused substances. This service took into account equality and diversity needs and that of vulnerable groups.

• There was access to translation and interpreting services and staff said that they had knowledge of the trust’s interpreting policy. Staff were aware of local links into services for new migrants and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

• Services were easily accessible for children and their families. There was flexibility in how these were provided to suit individual need. There were minimal complaints about the service and these had been dealt with in a timely manner.

• There was a clear vision for the service that was child and family focussed and demonstrated innovation. There were systems in place linking governance, risk management and quality measurement at service and board level. Staff said that they were aware of these and that all levels of management, including the chief executive were visible and accessible.

• Although the community management level was currently interim pending re-configuration, this had not affected staff morale. Staff told us that they worked in an open culture and were given the opportunity to develop individually and as teams. There was evidence of engagement with both the public and staff members. We saw evidence of staff and public feedback. This was used to drive and improve services.

• There were many examples of innovative practice aimed at increased access to services for children and their families. These were evaluated to ensure that staff understood and could learn from both successes and failures.

Updated 20 June 2018

This was our first inspection of this service. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• Risk assessments not carried out routinely to ensure patients received appropriate care and treatment on the unit.
• Some patients, families, and carers told us their needs were not recognised or monitored while on the unit.
• There was insufficient clinical oversight and staff were not equipped to identify and manage deteriorating patients.
• Not all staff had the skills they needed to carry out their role effectively and in line with best practice. Staffing did not always meet defined minimum staffing levels.
• We were not assured that governance systems were effective in escalating potential risks and issues, or that learning from incidents was embedded.
• The issues we raised had not been identified within the provider’s own monitoring or audit systems. These were similar to issues identified following a previous serious incident on the unit which meant the service had not put in sufficient measures to ensure patients received high quality, safe care.
• Patient information was not always consistently recorded and staff did not always have access to the information they needed. There were inconsistencies between information recorded in electronic and paper based patient records.
• Staff did not always recognise, report or record incidents and not all incidents were effectively investigated. This meant opportunities for learning from incidents were missed.
• The leadership model was confusing, roles and responsibilities were not clear and there was insufficient clinical oversight of patients.

However:

• Most patients, families, and carers gave positive feedback about the service and felt staff communicated with them effectively.
• Managers and healthcare professionals worked collaboratively with partner organisations and other agencies to arrange onward care for patients in their own homes e.g. carrying out home visits to assess individual needs.

Updated 15 August 2016

Overall we rated the service as good. We rated the end of life service in the trust as good for safe, effective, caring responsive and well-led. The service understood how to identify safety concerns and risks to patient safety. Incident reporting was embedded in the service and learning from incidents was shared across the service to ensure improvements were made.

Medicines were effectively managed and improvements from incidents were used to improve care and treatment of patients.

Patients could access services out of hours staff worked well with GP practices to ensure patients who were receiving end of life care and their relatives were cared for and supported in the last days of life.

Staff worked within multi-disciplinary teams to allow co-ordination of care and there were meetings held with every GP practice in the area where the team provided end of life care.

There was a 24 hour telephone service and referrals to the service were acknowledged within 10 minutes of referral and contacted by telephone within one hour of the referral. Patients and their relatives were contacted by the service within 3 hours.

There was a clinical educator post within the service to co-ordinate and provide training and staff had access to specialist training. Staff had one to ones with their manager and yearly appraisals. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities for providing end of life care.

Care was provided based on national guidance such as The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The trust had developed and was implementing an Individual care of the dying document (ICODD) which was based on the five priorities of care document in the community.

The service had developed an end of life dashboard and they monitored patient outcomes. Information about patient care and outcomes were shared with the trust and commissioners of the service to continue to improve patient care.

The service had a vision for the service which was understood by all staff and staff felt the service was well managed and patient care was a priority for all staff.