The CQC single assessment framework explained

The Care Quality Commission assesses registered health and adult social care services in England. Its current provider guidance, updated on 2 July 2026, says its assessment approach retains five key questions and the four-point ratings scale. It assesses services against quality statements, which replaced the previous key lines of enquiry, prompts and ratings characteristics. CQC can gather evidence on site and off site and may expand an assessment's scope if concerns arise.

This is an explanation of CQC's assessment framework, not a checklist guaranteeing a rating. CQC says it will refine its approach and guidance, so providers should recheck the live guidance before an inspection or quality review. The existing inspection checklist and evidence checklist own the practical preparation questions. This page owns the structure of the framework.

The five key questions

CQC asks whether a service is safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The questions remain familiar, but the evidence and quality-statement framework changed how CQC describes expectations. Do not assume that a positive answer to one question proves a service is good overall. Evidence can cross questions, and CQC uses judgement as well as scoring.

Quality statements describe what good care looks like from the perspective of people receiving it. Providers should read the statements relevant to their service type, identify which arrangements and outcomes speak to each one, and check whether front-line practice matches written policy. A folder labeled safe does not demonstrate safety if incident learning, staffing or people's experience points elsewhere.

Six evidence categories

CQC's evidence-category guidance groups information into six categories: people's experience of health and care services; feedback from staff and leaders; feedback from partners; observation; processes; and outcomes. The categories organize what the regulator may look at. CQC says the categories selected and sources collected vary by sector, service model, assessment level and whether the assessment concerns an existing service or registration. Do not build a fixed six-folder evidence demand for every quality statement and every service.

For example, a policy can help show a process, while interviews, observation, records and outcomes show whether that process works in practice. A provider should be able to trace a quality concern to the response and learning, not only to an upload date. Evidence should be current, proportionate and attributable. Avoid collecting identifiable personal information into a general marketing document or tool unless there is a proper purpose and access control.

Scoring and ratings

CQC's July 2026 guidance says it uses a scoring system after assessment to produce a rating for services that receive one. Not every type of service has a legal requirement to receive a rating. The detailed method is in CQC's linked how we reach a rating guidance. A provider should not reverse-engineer a guaranteed score from a self-assessment tool. The regulator may gather new evidence, weigh quality statements and apply professional judgement. Since December 2024, CQC has scored at quality-statement level rather than scoring each evidence category separately, and aggregates those quality-statement scores into a rating for each key question.

The framework has been reviewed and revised since introduction. Historical reports describing the original scoring design are useful context but should not be treated as the current operational rule if CQC has updated provider guidance. This guide is anchored to the live provider pages checked on 30 September 2026; review their update dates before integration or publication.

How one quality statement can draw on several sources

Consider a service reviewing how it learns from incidents. Its process may describe reporting and investigation, but that is only one type of evidence. Staff feedback may reveal whether workers feel able to report concerns. People's experience may show whether they were told what happened and involved in improvement. Outcomes may show whether the same harm recurred. Observation may reveal whether the stated process is followed on a shift. A provider should look at agreement or conflict across these sources rather than upload the policy and assume the quality statement is satisfied.

Different service types will have different relevant evidence categories. For a small domiciliary service, some evidence may be collected through conversations and records rather than a large data dashboard. A hospital may have more formal data and committees but still need to show impact on people. CQC identifies the categories relevant to a sector and quality statement. A provider can prepare by knowing where truthful evidence sits and by fixing gaps in practice, not by manufacturing six examples for every statement.

What changed from the old KLOE model?

KLOEs were key lines of enquiry with prompts and ratings characteristics. Quality statements now express expectations under each key question, while evidence categories make the types of information considered more explicit. Providers should not merely rename an old KLOE spreadsheet. Check whether policies and governance still match the service as delivered, and identify who will explain decisions when CQC asks for evidence. A crosswalk from old documents can save work, but a line on a spreadsheet is not evidence of current care quality.

Where CQC changes guidance, update the map and tell the teams affected. The regulator's July 2026 page says provider guidance can be refined. Treat a source-check date as part of the evidence pack. A template that was accurate at the start of an assessment may need adjustment before the regulator completes it.

Prepare evidence without turning it into box-ticking

Map relevant quality statements to actual work, owner and evidence source. Look for contradictions between policy, staff accounts, people's experience and outcomes. Review incidents, complaints and improvement actions. Ask whether a statement has evidence of practice and learning, rather than merely a document title. The CQC mock-inspection tool can prompt a structured review, while the two existing checklists help with inspection and evidence collection. They do not issue a CQC rating.

The CQC software comparison page is the commercial destination for teams evaluating tools. No claim is made that Complys automatically maps evidence to CQC scores, predicts ratings, or obtains regulatory approval.

General information, not legal advice. Verify current requirements against the primary sources linked above.