Skip to main content
CQCGovernanceRegulation

CQC 2024 State of Care: What Providers Must Know

15 January 2025 8 min read By Cheta O

The CQC's 2023/24 State of Care report confirmed what many registered managers already knew: the sector is under sustained pressure, and the governance systems most providers rely on are not built for the demands of the Single Assessment Framework.

What the numbers actually say

26% of adult social care services in England are rated Requires Improvement or Inadequate. That figure has remained broadly stable for several years, which tells us something important: the problem isn't cyclical. It's structural.

The services that struggle most are not poorly intentioned. In most cases, they are under-resourced, using legacy systems that weren't designed for continuous evidence generation, and managing workforces whose competency records live in paper files or disconnected spreadsheets.

What changed in 2024

The Single Assessment Framework (SAF), which replaced the Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOEs) model, continued its phased rollout in 2024. The transition matters because it changes the unit of inspection from broad domains to 34 specific quality statements, each requiring evidence of actual practice, not just policy.

The most significant shift is what CQC now calls "evidence of impact." Inspectors are not looking for a folder of procedures. They are looking for documentation that shows a specific quality statement is being met, regularly, with traceable records. That evidence needs to be current, structured, and retrievable quickly, ideally within an inspection window of hours, not days.

The three governance gaps most providers carry

Based on inspection findings and sector data, most providers who receive Requires Improvement ratings carry one or more of three structural governance gaps:

Staff competency without real-time enforcement. Mandatory training completion and qualification currency are tracked on spreadsheets or paper matrices that are updated monthly or quarterly, not continuously. Non-compliant staff can be rostered without any automated block. By the time the compliance gap is identified, harm may already have occurred.

Evidence preparation as a manual event. Preparing evidence for inspection is treated as a disruptive, intensive process rather than a continuous output. Teams spend 4 to 6 hours (sometimes days) gathering, formatting, and cross-referencing documents ahead of each visit. The evidence exists in the organisation, but it isn't structured for inspection retrieval.

Data fragmentation across legacy systems. Most providers use a combination of care management software, HR systems, and informal records that do not communicate with each other. Staff competency data lives in one place, care notes in another, incident reports in a third. There is no unified governance view.

What good looks like now

Providers achieving Good or Outstanding ratings in 2024 share a common characteristic: their governance data is continuous, structured, and retrievable. They can evidence any quality statement within minutes. Their staff compliance records are live. Their rota systems enforce eligibility, rather than relying on managers to check manually before each shift.

That infrastructure exists in Survelix. The CVE maintains a live competency ledger. The EAL generates evidence packs mapped to all 34 SAF quality statements in under 15 minutes. The GIE flags risks before inspectors arrive. DataBridge connects legacy systems so the data is always current.

What to do now

If your provider is rated Requires Improvement, the first priority is not to produce more documentation. It is to understand which quality statements you cannot currently evidence, and why. In most cases, the evidence exists. It is just inaccessible in the format CQC requires.

Map your current evidence against all 34 SAF quality statements. Identify the gaps. Then ask: could this evidence be generated automatically, or does it require manual assembly every time?

If the answer is manual assembly every time, you have a structural governance problem, not an evidence problem. That is what Survelix is designed to fix.

About the author

Cheta O is Director & Product Lead at Survelix. A practising Registered Manager with MSc Public Health and MSc Organisational Psychology, Cheta built Survelix on direct CQC inspection experience. → Full bio

Ready to see Survelix in action?

Book a 30-minute demo and see how Survelix automates the governance work described in this article.

Schedule Demo See the Product