CQC Monitor

Analysis

Why ratings are given · reasons & themes

Why ratings are given

The breakdown below shows how the five key questions drive overall ratings.

Among the 6801 locations rated Inadequate or Requires improvement, the domains most often failing are:

  • Well-led97.2% (6608/6801)
  • Safe92% (6258/6801)
  • Effective61.7% (4197/6801)
  • Responsive50.8% (3452/6801)
  • Caring29.8% (2028/6801)

Safe

  • Outstanding110
  • Good25056
  • Requires improvement5990
  • Inadequate1436
  • Unrated23609
  • Inspected but not rated129
  • No published rating8956
  • Insufficient evidence to rate27

Effective

  • Outstanding381
  • Good27428
  • Requires improvement4057
  • Inadequate679
  • Unrated23609
  • Inspected but not rated87
  • No published rating9043
  • Insufficient evidence to rate29

Caring

  • Outstanding1225
  • Good29215
  • Requires improvement1821
  • Inadequate272
  • Unrated23609
  • Inspected but not rated86
  • No published rating9060
  • Insufficient evidence to rate25

Responsive

  • Outstanding1430
  • Good27265
  • Requires improvement3364
  • Inadequate475
  • Unrated23609
  • Inspected but not rated84
  • No published rating9058
  • Insufficient evidence to rate28

Well-led

  • Outstanding1100
  • Good22966
  • Requires improvement6951
  • Inadequate1568
  • Unrated23609
  • Inspected but not rated96
  • No published rating8997
  • Insufficient evidence to rate26

Recurring reasons (AI-extracted)

AI reasons extracted for 2829 of 32572 rated locations (poorly-rated prioritised).

Recurring themes

  • leadership/governance2820
  • safeguarding2689
  • medication2577
  • risk-management2340
  • training2250
  • care-planning2215
  • staffing2039
  • recruitment1917
  • infection-control1199
  • dignity/respect1131
  • environment/premises1033
  • nutrition624

Why good vs why poor

Comparing AI-read reports of 419 Good/Outstanding homes against 2410 Inadequate/Requires-improvement homes. Themes a report emphasises — concerns in poor homes, strengths in good ones.

poorly-ratedgood/outstanding
  • dignity/respect
    poor32%
    good87%
  • nutrition
    poor18%
    good43%
  • infection-control
    poor39%
    good63%
  • recruitment
    poor65%
    good84%
  • training
    poor77%
    good95%
  • care-planning
    poor76%
    good94%
  • staffing
    poor70%
    good82%
  • safeguarding
    poor94%
    good100%
  • medication
    poor90%
    good96%
  • leadership/governance
    poor100%
    good100%
  • risk-management
    poor84%
    good75%
  • environment/premises
    poor38%
    good28%

Most-cited concerns (poor homes)

  • risk1908
  • medicines1736
  • assessments1333
  • records1308
  • systems1175
  • including1113
  • plans1080
  • quality1078
  • safety1060
  • identify959
  • risks946
  • management910
  • failed847
  • lacked838

Most-cited strengths (good homes)

  • strong390
  • systems302
  • safeguarding285
  • management278
  • regular271
  • including268
  • effective240
  • centred231
  • safe231
  • training223
  • quality216
  • risk184
  • leadership175
  • comprehensive174

Good-home sample is smaller (many recent reports don't yield extractable text); treat as directional. Themes reflect report emphasis, not a like-for-like failure count.

Inspections by type

Locations by type

Rating distribution

Ratings by type

By region

Locations by region

  • South East11898
  • London8419
  • North West7999
  • West Midlands7378
  • East7304
  • South West7223
  • East Midlands6300
  • Yorkshire & Humberside5932
  • North East2825
  • Unknown29
  • Wales6

Top local authorities

Top 15 local authorities

  • Kent2074
  • Hampshire1832
  • Essex1714
  • Surrey1608
  • Lancashire1480
  • Birmingham1391
  • West Sussex1192
  • Hertfordshire1175
  • Norfolk1163
  • Devon1090
  • Staffordshire1009
  • Nottinghamshire987
  • Suffolk889
  • East Sussex886
  • Derbyshire875