ASF Standards · Home Care · Standard 3
Standard 3 — Home Environment Safety Assessment
Criteria in this standard
3.1 — A Genuine, Structured Home Safety Assessment Occurs Before Care Begins
3.2 — Identified Hazards Lead to Genuine, Tracked Remediation
3.3 — A Fall Genuinely Triggers Reassessment
3.4 — The Home Environment Is Reassessed Periodically
3.5 — Emergency Access to the Home Is Genuinely Confirmed
3.2 — Identified Hazards Lead to Genuine, Tracked Remediation
3.3 — A Fall Genuinely Triggers Reassessment
3.4 — The Home Environment Is Reassessed Periodically
3.5 — Emergency Access to the Home Is Genuinely Confirmed
3.1
A Genuine, Structured Home Safety Assessment Occurs Before Care Begins
Non-Negotiable
A genuine, structured home safety assessment — covering flooring, lighting, stairs, bathroom hazards, and clear pathways — is conducted before care begins, not assumed adequate from a general first impression of the home.
In plain terms: Before care begins, someone walks through the client's home with a checklist — floors, lighting, stairs, bathroom, clutter, heating, smoke alarms — and writes down every hazard.
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Full | Full | Full | Full |
Why this matters
The client's home is where they will fall, burn, trip, or be unable to escape a fire. A loose rug, a dark staircase, a bath with no rail, a kitchen with a gas leak, a blocked exit — each is a preventable injury. A structured assessment (a defined checklist, done by a trained person, at the first visit) finds them. An unstructured 'look around' finds what happens to catch the eye. The assessment is the baseline for remediation (3.2) and reassessment (3.4). Without it, the agency is delivering care into an unknown environment.
What good looks like
- A genuine, structured assessment occurs before care begins for every client.
- The assessment genuinely covers all specific, defined hazard categories.
- The assessment is genuinely completed by someone trained to recognise these hazards.
Common failure modes
- Assessment relies on a general impression, not a structured checklist.
- The assessment covers some hazard categories but misses others.
- The assessment is completed by someone without genuine, specific training.
Worked example
In practice
A 120-client agency where the first visit was a care needs assessment only.
BeforeThe intake nurse assessed the client's care needs. The home was not assessed. A client fell on a loose stair carpet in her second week of service; the caregiver had noticed it but had nowhere to record it. No checklist existed.
ActionA 30-item home safety checklist was adopted from national occupational therapy guidance: flooring and rugs, lighting, stairs and rails, bathroom (rails, non-slip, bath/shower access), kitchen (gas, electrical, storage height), heating, smoke and CO alarms, exits, clutter, pets, medication storage. Completed at the first visit by the intake nurse, with hazards rated and recorded. The client and family are given a copy.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 20 completed home assessments with hazards identified and rated. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- Adopt a structured checklist — 30 items from OT guidance.
- Complete it at every new client's first visit.
- Rate each hazard.
- Give the client a copy.
The most common mistake: Assessing the client and not the home — the home is where the injury will happen.
Self-assessment questions
1. Does a genuine, structured home safety assessment occur before care begins, not a general impression alone? — Real, structured assessment using a defined checklist, not an informal, general impression.
Evidence: Home safety assessment documentation
Evidence: Home safety assessment documentation
2. Does this assessment genuinely cover flooring, lighting, stairs, bathroom hazards, and clear pathways specifically? — Complete, specific coverage of these real hazard categories, not a partial or generic check.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Is the assessment genuinely completed by someone trained to recognise these specific hazards, not left to informal observation? — Real, trained assessment, not an untrained caregiver's informal impression.
Evidence: Assessor training record
Evidence: Assessor training record
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- The assessment is thorough for common areas but doesn't specifically address less obvious spaces like a basement or garage the client actually uses. — Every space the client genuinely uses carries real hazard potential, not only the most visible rooms.
- The assessment happens before care begins but documentation doesn't clearly capture what was specifically checked. — Specific documentation is what makes the assessment genuinely verifiable and actionable later.
- Assessor training covers general hazard awareness but not the specific, structured checklist categories used.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current pre-care assessment practice for genuine, structured coverage. |
| Week 2 | Adopt or strengthen a structured home safety checklist covering all key hazard categories. |
| Week 3 | Train assessors specifically on the structured checklist and hazard recognition. |
| Ongoing | Extend assessment to all spaces the client genuinely uses, not only common areas. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| DOCUMENT | Assessment documentation review | Reviews the actual, structured home safety assessment record for a sample of clients. |
| DOCUMENT | Coverage completeness review | Reviews whether the assessment genuinely covers all specific, defined hazard categories. |
| DOCUMENT | Assessor training review | Reviews training records confirming the assessor is genuinely trained to recognise these hazards. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask to see the actual, structured home safety assessment for a specific, real client. — A real, specific record reveals genuine, structured practice, not an assumption of general adequacy.
- Ask an assessor to describe the specific hazard categories the checklist covers. — A specific, confident answer reveals genuine, structured training, not general hazard awareness.
Evidence base
[11] A meta-analysis of home safety intervention found it could reduce falls by 39 percent among at-risk seniors, with structured home fall-hazard checklists established as an effective, evidence-based fall prevention strategy distinct from a general, unstructured impression of the home.
ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →
Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.
3.2
Identified Hazards Lead to Genuine, Tracked Remediation
Non-Negotiable
A hazard identified during home safety assessment leads to genuine, tracked remediation — a specific action taken, a specific person responsible, a specific timeframe — not a hazard noted on a checklist and then left unaddressed.
In plain terms: Every hazard found leads to a specific action — a grab rail installed, a rug removed, a referral made — tracked until done, not just noted in the file.
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Full | Full | Adapted | Full |
Why this matters
The assessment found the loose rug. Three months later, the client fell on it. The hazard was documented; nothing was done. Remediation means: for each hazard, a specific action (remove, fix, install, refer to OT, advise the family), a person responsible, a target date, and a check that it happened. Some remediation is the agency's (removing a rug with consent); some is the family's (installing a rail); some is a referral (OT, housing). All are tracked. A hazard list without a remediation log is a list of future injuries.
What good looks like
- Identified hazards genuinely lead to tracked, resulting remediation.
- Specific accountability and timeframes are genuinely assigned to each hazard.
- Remediation completion is genuinely, specifically verified.
Common failure modes
- Hazards are documented on a checklist but never actually addressed.
- No specific person or timeframe is assigned; remediation remains open-ended.
- Remediation is assumed complete without genuine verification.
Worked example
In practice
A 100-client agency with home assessments completed but no follow-through.
BeforeHazards were recorded on the assessment form and filed. No action tracking. The Coordinator reviewed 30 assessments from six months earlier: 60% of identified hazards were unchanged at reassessment. Two falls had occurred on documented hazards.
ActionA remediation log was added to every assessment: hazard, action, responsible party, target date, completion date. The supervisor reviews open items weekly and chases. Simple fixes (rugs, lighting, clutter) are done at the next visit with consent. Grab rails and equipment are referred to OT or the family with a follow-up call. Hazards that cannot be fixed are noted with a risk mitigation (e.g. caregiver escorts on stairs).
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 20 remediation logs: 85% of hazards closed within target; open items had mitigations documented. Falls on documented hazards: 0 in six months. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- Review your last 20 home assessments. How many hazards have been fixed?
- Add a remediation log with owner and date to every assessment.
- Fix simple things at the next visit.
- Chase open items weekly.
The most common mistake: Documenting the hazard and filing the form — the rug is still there.
Self-assessment questions
1. Does an identified hazard lead to genuine, tracked remediation, not a checklist item left unaddressed? — Real, tracked, resulting action, not documentation without follow-through.
Evidence: Hazard remediation tracking record
Evidence: Hazard remediation tracking record
2. Is a specific person and timeframe genuinely assigned to each identified hazard, not left informally open-ended? — Real, specific accountability and timing, not a vague intention to address it eventually.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Is remediation genuinely verified as completed, not assumed done without confirmation? — Real, confirmed completion, not an assumption the hazard was actually addressed.
Evidence: Remediation completion verification
Evidence: Remediation completion verification
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- Remediation happens reliably for hazards the caregiver can fix directly but stalls for those requiring the family's action. — A hazard requiring family involvement carries the same real risk and deserves the same genuine tracking through to completion.
- Timeframes are assigned but aren't consistently followed up on when the deadline passes. — A timeframe without genuine follow-up doesn't provide reliable assurance the hazard was actually addressed.
- Verification happens through caregiver report but isn't independently confirmed for higher-risk hazards.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current hazard remediation practice for genuine tracking through to completion. |
| Week 2 | Establish specific accountability and timeframes for every identified hazard. |
| Week 3 | Build a follow-up process for hazards requiring family or third-party action. |
| Ongoing | Independently verify remediation completion for higher-risk hazards. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| DOCUMENT | Remediation tracking review | Reviews records for genuine, tracked remediation of identified hazards. |
| DOCUMENT | Accountability review | Reviews whether specific responsibility and timeframes are genuinely assigned to each hazard. |
| DOCUMENT | Completion verification review | Reviews whether remediation completion is genuinely, specifically verified. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask for a real, recent example of an identified hazard and trace it through to confirmed remediation. — A real, traceable example reveals genuine follow-through, not documentation without resulting action.
- Ask what happens when a hazard requires the family's action rather than the caregiver's own. — A specific, confident answer reveals whether tracking genuinely extends beyond what the caregiver alone controls.
Evidence base
[12] Home fall-hazard checklists are established as effective specifically when paired with genuine remediation of identified hazards, with the underlying evidence for fall reduction depending on hazards actually being addressed, not merely documented.
ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →
Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.
3.3
A Fall Genuinely Triggers Reassessment
Non-Negotiable
When a client experiences a fall, this genuinely triggers a specific, structured reassessment of the home environment and the client's own risk factors — not treated as an isolated event requiring only immediate first aid, given a documented fall is a strong, real predictor of another one.
In plain terms: When a client falls, the home and the client are reassessed within days — what caused it, what has changed, what needs fixing — not just an incident report.
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Full | Full | Full | Full |
Why this matters
A fall is a signal. Something changed: the client's balance, a new medication, a hazard that was not there before, a change in lighting or footwear. The fall tells you the current plan is not enough. Reassessment means: within a defined time (72 hours), a structured review of the environment (3.1 repeated), the client's mobility and medications, the circumstances of the fall, and an updated plan with new actions. An incident report that records the fall and changes nothing invites the next one.
What good looks like
- A fall genuinely triggers a specific, structured reassessment.
- Reassessment genuinely covers both home environment and client risk factors.
- Reassessment genuinely happens promptly, not delayed to a routine review.
Common failure modes
- A fall is treated as an isolated event, with no triggered reassessment.
- Reassessment, if any, covers only one dimension, not both home and client factors.
- Reassessment is delayed until a routine, already-scheduled review.
Worked example
In practice
A 150-client agency where falls were logged as incidents.
BeforeFalls were reported on an incident form and filed. No reassessment. A client fell three times in two months; each was logged; the cause — a new sedating medication — was never identified because nobody looked.
ActionA post-fall protocol was written: within 72 hours, the supervisor visits and completes a structured reassessment — home safety checklist repeated, mobility assessment, medication review with the GP, circumstances of the fall (time, location, activity, footwear), and an updated care plan with specific actions. Recurrent falls trigger a GP referral. Falls are trended monthly.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 15 post-fall reassessments with documented causes and actions; falls per client down 35%. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- Pull your last ten falls. What was done after each?
- Write a 72-hour post-fall reassessment protocol.
- Include a medication review with the GP.
- Update the care plan every time.
The most common mistake: Treating a fall as an incident to record rather than a signal to investigate.
Self-assessment questions
1. Does a client fall genuinely trigger a structured reassessment, not treated as an isolated event? — Real, structured reassessment, not routine continuation after first aid.
Evidence: Post-fall reassessment record
Evidence: Post-fall reassessment record
2. Does reassessment genuinely cover both the home environment and the client's own risk factors? — Complete reassessment of both, not one dimension alone.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Does reassessment happen promptly after the fall, not delayed to a routine review? — Real, prompt reassessment specifically triggered by the fall.
Evidence: Reassessment timing record
Evidence: Reassessment timing record
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- Reassessment happens for falls resulting in injury but not consistently for falls without apparent immediate harm. — A fall without apparent injury still carries the same genuine, statistical risk of recurrence.
- Home environment reassessment happens but client-specific risk factors like medication or balance aren't consistently re-examined. — Both dimensions genuinely contribute to fall risk, and reassessment should address each.
- Reassessment happens within a reasonable time but isn't specifically documented as fall-triggered, making the pattern harder to track over time.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current post-fall response for genuine, structured reassessment versus routine continuation. |
| Week 2 | Establish a defined reassessment process specifically covering home and client risk factors. |
| Week 3 | Confirm reassessment occurs promptly for every fall, including those without apparent injury. |
| Ongoing | Document reassessments as specifically fall-triggered for pattern tracking. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| DOCUMENT | Post-fall reassessment review | Reviews records for genuine, structured reassessment following a documented fall. |
| DOCUMENT | Reassessment scope review | Reviews whether reassessment genuinely covers both home environment and client risk factors. |
| DOCUMENT | Timing review | Reviews whether reassessment genuinely occurs promptly after the fall, not delayed. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask for a real, recent example of a client fall and trace what reassessment actually followed. — A real, traceable example reveals whether this process genuinely functions, not just exists in policy.
- Ask whether a fall without apparent injury still triggers the same reassessment as one that does. — This tests whether the response genuinely reflects the real, statistical recurrence risk, not just visible severity.
Evidence base
[13] Research found nearly 57 percent of seniors experienced a second fall within one year of an initial fall, establishing a documented fall as a strong, genuine predictor requiring structured reassessment, distinct from treatment as an isolated, resolved event.
ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →
Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.
3.4
The Home Environment Is Reassessed Periodically
Core
The home environment is genuinely reassessed on a periodic, defined schedule, not limited to the initial assessment at the start of care, given a home's physical condition and hazard profile can genuinely change over the course of an ongoing care relationship.
In plain terms: The home is reassessed on a schedule — every six months, or when the client's condition changes — because homes and clients change.
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | N/A | Full | Adapted | Full |
Why this matters
The client who could manage stairs six months ago cannot now. The family moved the furniture. The heating broke. A new pet arrived. The home assessed at intake is not the home today. A defined reassessment cycle — six months, and at any significant change in the client's condition or living situation — keeps the hazard list current. Caregivers are also trained to report changes between formal reassessments.
What good looks like
- The home environment is genuinely reassessed on a periodic, defined schedule.
- The caregiver's regular presence genuinely informs ongoing reassessment.
- Genuine changes are captured between scheduled reassessment points, not missed until the next formal check.
Common failure modes
- Reassessment is limited to the initial visit, never genuinely repeated.
- Periodic reassessment happens but doesn't draw on the caregiver's actual regular presence.
- Changes between scheduled reassessments go unnoticed until the next formal check.
Worked example
In practice
A 100-client agency with intake home assessments only.
BeforeHomes were assessed once. Clients served for years had assessments from their first week. A client's home had acquired a new hazard (a family member's exercise equipment in the hallway) that caused a fall eighteen months after the original assessment.
ActionA six-monthly home reassessment was scheduled for every client, with the full checklist, by the supervisor. Triggers for earlier reassessment were defined: hospital discharge, new diagnosis, mobility change, change in household, any fall. Caregivers report environmental changes on a simple form at any visit. The reassessment feeds the remediation log.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the reassessment schedule (no client overdue), 20 reassessments with new hazards identified and remediated, and caregiver change reports. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- List every client and the date of their last home assessment.
- Schedule a reassessment for anyone over six months.
- Define change triggers.
- Give caregivers a form to report changes.
The most common mistake: An intake assessment treated as permanent — the home changes.
Self-assessment questions
1. Is the home genuinely reassessed on a periodic schedule, not limited to initial assessment? — Real, periodic reassessment, not a one-time check treated as permanent.
Evidence: Periodic reassessment schedule documentation
Evidence: Periodic reassessment schedule documentation
2. Does the caregiver's regular presence genuinely inform this reassessment? — Real use of the caregiver's actual presence, not an infrequent separate visit alone.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Is a genuine change in the home's condition captured between scheduled reassessments? — Real, ongoing attentiveness, not hazard recognition limited to formal points.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- Periodic reassessment happens but the interval is long enough that a genuine, meaningful change could go uncaught. — A genuinely protective interval reflects how quickly a home's real condition can meaningfully change.
- Caregivers are present regularly but aren't specifically prompted to note hazard-relevant changes as part of routine visits. — This genuine structural advantage only provides real value if caregivers are specifically prompted to use it.
- Reassessment documentation exists but isn't compared against the initial assessment to identify what's genuinely changed.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current reassessment practice for genuine, periodic repetition beyond the initial visit. |
| Week 2 | Establish a defined reassessment schedule with a genuinely protective interval. |
| Week 3 | Train caregivers to specifically note hazard-relevant changes during routine visits. |
| Ongoing | Compare reassessment documentation against prior assessments to identify genuine changes. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| DOCUMENT | Periodic schedule review | Reviews the defined schedule for periodic home environment reassessment. |
| ASK | Ongoing presence interview | Asks a caregiver how their regular presence genuinely informs ongoing hazard awareness between formal reassessments. |
| DOCUMENT | Between-assessment capture review | Reviews evidence that changes are genuinely captured between scheduled reassessment points. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask a caregiver whether they've ever noticed and reported a new hazard between scheduled reassessments. — A real, specific example reveals whether this genuine structural advantage is actually being used.
- Ask to compare a client's initial assessment against their most recent reassessment. — A real, direct comparison reveals whether reassessment genuinely tracks meaningful change over time.
Evidence base
[14] Therapist home visits to identify and remediate hazards are considered the gold-standard method for fall prevention but are rarely feasible for most patients, establishing the genuine, structural value of a home caregiver's regular, ongoing presence for periodic reassessment that a typical clinical model cannot otherwise provide.
ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →
Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.
3.5
Emergency Access to the Home Is Genuinely Confirmed
Non-Negotiable
A genuine, verified plan exists for how emergency responders would actually access the home if the client is unable to reach the door — a lockbox code, a designated key holder, a specific access arrangement — not assumed that responders will simply find a way in when the moment arrives.
In plain terms: There is a confirmed plan for how an ambulance crew would get into the home if the client cannot open the door — a key safe, a neighbour, a code — tested and recorded.
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Full | Full | Full | Full |
Why this matters
The client collapses. The caregiver, or the alarm service, calls an ambulance. The ambulance arrives at a locked door. The client is inside, unconscious. Minutes are lost forcing entry, or the crew leaves. A confirmed access plan — a key safe with the code recorded for emergency services, a neighbour with a key who is home, a family member within minutes — is checked at intake, recorded in the file and with the emergency alarm service, and tested. 'The client always answers the door' is not a plan.
What good looks like
- A genuine, specific emergency access plan exists for the home.
- The plan is genuinely known and confirmed with client, family, and caregiver.
- The arrangement is genuinely verified as functional, not assumed to work.
Common failure modes
- No specific access plan exists beyond an assumption responders will manage.
- The plan exists on paper but relevant parties aren't genuinely aware of it.
- The arrangement's functionality has never been verified.
Worked example
In practice
A 120-client agency serving many clients living alone.
BeforeEmergency access was not addressed. A client with a personal alarm pressed it after a fall; the ambulance arrived; the door was locked; the client was inside for 40 minutes while the crew arranged forced entry. The agency had no record of how emergency services could enter.
ActionEmergency access became an intake item: for each client living alone, an access method is agreed (key safe installed by the agency with the code registered with the alarm service and emergency services where the jurisdiction permits; or a named nearby keyholder with confirmed availability; or a door code). The method is recorded in the care plan and on the emergency contact card. It is tested at intake and checked at each reassessment.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 20 care plans with confirmed access methods, the key safe register, and test records. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- For every client living alone, ask: how would an ambulance get in if you could not open the door?
- Install key safes where needed and register the codes.
- Record the method in the care plan.
- Test it.
The most common mistake: Assuming the client will open the door — the emergency is when they cannot.
Self-assessment questions
1. Does a genuine, verified emergency access plan exist for this home? — A real, confirmed arrangement, not an assumption responders will find a way in.
Evidence: Emergency access plan documentation
Evidence: Emergency access plan documentation
2. Is this plan genuinely known to the client, family, and caregiver? — Real, confirmed awareness, not a plan that exists only on paper.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Is the access arrangement genuinely verified as functional? — Real, verified functionality, not an assumption it would work when needed.
Evidence: Access arrangement verification
Evidence: Access arrangement verification
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- An access plan exists and is known to the caregiver but hasn't been specifically confirmed with the client's family. — Every party who might need to act on this plan deserves the same genuine, confirmed awareness.
- The plan was verified as functional at setup but hasn't been reconfirmed since, and circumstances may have changed. — An access arrangement's real functionality should be periodically reconfirmed, not assumed to remain valid indefinitely.
- A plan exists for the primary caregiver's shifts but isn't consistently communicated to a covering or substitute caregiver.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current emergency access planning for genuine, specific, verified arrangements. |
| Week 2 | Confirm access plan awareness with client, family, and all caregivers, including covering staff. |
| Week 3 | Verify the access arrangement's genuine functionality directly. |
| Ongoing | Periodically reconfirm the access plan remains current and functional. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| DOCUMENT | Access plan documentation review | Reviews the specific, documented emergency access plan for each client's home. |
| ASK | Awareness confirmation interview | Asks the client, family, and caregiver whether they're genuinely aware of the current access plan. |
| DOCUMENT | Functional verification review | Reviews evidence the access arrangement has been genuinely verified as functional. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask the caregiver directly what the specific emergency access plan is for this client's home. — A specific, confident answer reveals genuine awareness, not an assumption a plan exists somewhere.
- Ask when the access arrangement was last actually verified as functional. — A specific, real answer reveals genuine verification, not an assumption it would work when needed.
Evidence base
[15] Verified emergency access arrangements for a client unable to reach the door, distinct from an assumption that responders will resolve access in the moment, are established as necessary home safety planning, reflecting a risk specific to care delivered in a private residence.
ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →
Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.