The criteria

The branch divides its area into defined zones, each served by a stable team, and allocates new packages by zone.

Evidence: Zone map (version, date); team-to-zone list (date); allocation procedure (reference)

1. 1No zones; visits go wherever there is capacity
2. 2Zones drawn up; under [50]% of visits by the zone team (TK5)
3. 3TK5 at least [70]% for 3 months
4. 4TK5 at least [85]% for 6 months; new packages allocated by zone
5. 5TK5 at least [95]% for 12 months; zones agreed with the council

Rounds are sequenced to cut travel, with realistic travel time scheduled between every pair of visits.

Evidence: Planning method or optimisation settings; rota extract (w/c DD/MM/YYYY); TK4 report (month)

1. 1Rounds built ad hoc; zero-travel gaps common
2. 2Travel time added by judgement, not checked against routes
3. 3Route-based travel time on every visit pair; TK4 under [5]%
4. 4Route optimisation run weekly; TK4 under [2]%; exceptions reviewed
5. 5Plans checked monthly against actual travel; TK4 under [1]%

Care workers are recruited and rostered near their zone, and rotas are issued far enough ahead to plan around.

Evidence: Recruitment adverts by zone (dates); rota issue log (period); TK6 report (month)

1. 1Workers rostered anywhere; rotas issued at short notice
2. 2Home location considered; rotas issued [3] days ahead
3. 3Rotas issued [7] days ahead; late changes (TK6) measured
4. 4Recruitment targets zones; TK6 under [10]% for 6 months
5. 5TK6 under [5]% for 12 months; worker feedback acted on

Travel time, driving distance and paid staff time are measured monthly from visit data, using the scheme's KPI definitions.

Evidence: KPI return TK1–TK6 (months covered); extract method and system name; data quality check (date)

1. 1Travel not measured
2. 2Travel estimated from samples or planned rotas
3. 3TK1–TK3 and TK5 from actual visit data for 3 months
4. 4TK1–TK6 for 6 months; data checks documented; monthly review
5. 512 months complete; TK7 emissions reported; shared with commissioners quarterly

Travel per contact hour is falling against the branch's baseline, or is among the best in its rurality band.

Evidence: Baseline month and values; trend for the last 6–12 months; peer comparison (date)

1. 1No baseline, or travel rising without action
2. 2Baseline set; improvement plan agreed
3. 3TK1 or TK2 improved [5]% on baseline for 3 months
4. 4TK1 and TK2 improved [10]% on baseline for 6 months
5. 5Top quartile for TK1 and TK2 in the rurality band for 12 months

Time travelling between visits is paid as working time and checked against the National Minimum Wage; travel costs are reimbursed.

Evidence: Pay policy (version, date); NMW check for pay period (DD/MM/YYYY); mileage policy and rate (date)

1. 1Travel time unpaid, or never checked against NMW
2. 2Travel paid by allowance without NMW checks
3. 3Travel paid as working time; NMW checked every pay period
4. 4Travel paid at the normal hourly rate; mileage at a published rate
5. 5Whole rounds paid, including waiting time between visits

The branch works with commissioners and other providers to align zones, swap packages and price whole rounds that cover the cost of care.

Evidence: Council correspondence (dates); package swap log (period); cost of care model (version, date)

1. 1No contact with commissioners on geography or costs
2. 2Packages mapped against council areas; zoning raised with the council
3. 3Costed whole-round model; zone alignment proposed in writing
4. 4Package swaps done with other providers; costed neighbourhood proposal submitted
5. 5Working under a neighbourhood or round-based contract, or proposal accepted by the council

Every person has a named core team, sized to their package (guide: [3–4] workers for up to [14] visits a week), recorded in the rostering system and shared with the person.

Evidence: Core team policy (version, date); rostering screen showing the core-team field; sample of [10] care plans naming the team (dates)

1. 1No core teams; any available worker is sent
2. 2Core teams named for some people, outside the rostering system
3. 3Every person has a core team in the rostering system, sized to the package
4. 4Core teams reviewed at each care review; core-team churn measured
5. 5Core teams stable for 12 months, formed with people's and workers' views

People know who is coming, and no new worker arrives as a stranger.

Evidence: Introduction procedure (version, date); CK5 and CK6 reports (month); sample rota notifications (dates)

1. 1People not told who is coming; new workers arrive unannounced
2. 2People told on request; introductions informal
3. 3Rota shared [7] days ahead with everyone; CK5 at least [80]%
4. 4CK5 and CK6 at least [90]% for 6 months; same-day changes notified before the visit
5. 5CK5 and CK6 at least [95]% for 12 months; people choose how they get notice

Sickness, leave and vacancies are covered from the core team or zone team first.

Evidence: Cover procedure (version, date); cover log showing source of cover (period); CK4 trend (months)

1. 1Cover taken from anywhere; source not recorded
2. 2Procedure prefers the core team; not measured
3. 3Cover source recorded; most cover from the core or zone team
4. 4Planned leave covered from the core team in [90]% of cases; float workers attached to zones
5. 5CK4 under [5]% of visits for 12 months, holiday periods included

Continuity is measured monthly per person from visit data, by package band, using the scheme's KPI definitions.

Evidence: KPI return CK1–CK7 (months covered); extract method and system name; data quality check (date)

1. 1Continuity not measured
2. 2Measured by sample or manual counts
3. 3CK1–CK4 from actual visit data for 3 months, by package band
4. 4CK1–CK7 for 6 months; monthly review; low-continuity people flagged for action
5. 512 months complete; reviewed at every care review; shared with commissioners quarterly

Continuity is improving against the branch's baseline, or is among the best in its rurality band.

Evidence: Baseline month and values; trend for the last 6–12 months; peer comparison (date)

1. 1No baseline, or continuity falling without action
2. 2Baseline set; improvement plan agreed
3. 3CK1 up [5] percentage points on baseline, or at least [70]%, for 3 months
4. 4CK1 up [10] points or at least [80]%, with CK3 rising, for 6 months
5. 5Top quartile for CK1 and CK3 in the rurality band for 12 months

Workers record changes in health or wellbeing with a structured tool and escalate them to the right professional the same day.

Evidence: Tool name and version; training records (dates); sample of [10] escalations with outcomes (dates); GP or neighbourhood team contacts per zone

1. 1No structured recording of change
2. 2Changes noted in free-text visit notes only
3. 3Structured tool in use; workers trained; escalation route written down
4. 4Escalations audited monthly; named GP or neighbourhood contacts in each zone
5. 5Escalation outcomes tracked and learning shared with neighbourhood partners

Preferences about who provides care are recorded and honoured; people can ask to change worker without penalty; zoning never overrides choice.

Evidence: Sample of preferences in care plans (dates); change-of-worker request log (period); CK7 survey results (date)

1. 1Preferences not recorded; change requests refused or not logged
2. 2Preferences in some care plans; requests handled informally
3. 3Preferences recorded for everyone; requests answered within [5] working days; CK7 survey run
4. 4CK7 run twice a year with action plans; preference matching tracked
5. 5People and families help shape core teams; CK7 results published on the register