People’s experience
What people receiving care say and experience, along with families, friends and advocates where relevant.
Free guide for domiciliary care providers
A guide to CQC evidence
A practical way to check whether people’s experience, staff practice, records, results and what leaders see all point to the same conclusion.
By Ghulam Rasul SafiSources checked How this content is researched
Start with the current framework
Files alone do not demonstrate quality.
CQC’s published approach keeps five key questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It assesses services against standards called quality statements and groups the information it considers into six categories. Information may be gathered on site or remotely.
A useful internal review goes beyond checking whether a policy exists. It asks whether staff understand it, records reflect it, people experience it and action follows when something goes wrong.
Keep the official CQC source open. Guidance can change. This independent guide is not an official checklist, inspection, score, rating prediction or replacement for legal or regulatory advice.
A practical review method
Trace one issue from the requirement to the outcome
These six steps are a GR Safi review guide. They are not a CQC scoring method.
- 01
Expectation
What should happen according to assessed need, regulation, guidance and the provider’s own procedure?
- 02
Process
Who is responsible, what check is used and what happens when something goes wrong?
- 03
Practice
Can staff explain the control, and is it visible in observation or day-to-day delivery?
- 04
Record
Do the sampled assessments, plans, notes, audits and decisions show what happened?
- 05
Experience
What do people, families, staff and relevant partners say about the quality and impact?
- 06
Learning
When a gap appears, does someone own the action, complete it and check that it worked?
The published evidence categories
Look across six types of information.
CQC explains that the information used varies by service, type of assessment and quality statement. The six categories are not boxes that always need the same amount of information.
Staff and leader feedback
What staff and service leaders understand, report and notice through their work.
Partner feedback
Useful information from people who arrange care, health professionals and other organisations working with the service.
Observation
What can be seen in care interactions, the working environment and how processes operate in practice.
Processes
Policies, systems, audits and records that show how the service manages quality and risk.
Outcomes
The effect of care and support on safety, wellbeing, independence, continuity and quality of life.
Five key questions
Check sources against each other.
These examples help you decide what to check. The quality statements, regulations and information needed depend on the service and the questions being asked.
Safe
Can risk be recognised, reported and learned from?
- Safeguarding and incident follow-up
- Medicines records, omissions and urgent follow-up
- Risk controls visible in planned and delivered care
Effective
Does assessed need lead to effective support and outcomes?
- Current assessments and review evidence
- Consent, capacity and decision records where relevant
- Training translated into competent practice
Caring
Is dignity, involvement and individual choice evident?
- Preferences and communication needs understood
- Respectful language and person-centred detail
- Feedback sought, heard and acted on
Responsive
Does support change when a person’s needs change?
- Reviews following changes, events or concerns
- Continuity and accessible information
- Complaints linked to action and learning
Well-led
Can leaders see quality clearly and prove that an improvement worked?
- Quality information brought together and checked
- Actions assigned, dated and backed by proof of completion
- Repeat checks used to show whether change lasts
Ten useful tests
Check whether related records agree
Choose a sample that is large and varied enough to answer the question. Record both good practice and gaps.
- Assessment to Care plan
Does the plan clearly respond to every important assessed need?
- Care plan to Daily evidence
Do records show the planned support being delivered consistently?
- Known risk to Safety action
Is the control specific, current and understood by the people using it?
- Medicine record gap to Urgent follow-up
Can an omission, refusal or error be followed through to review and action?
- Training to Practical skill check
Is course completion supported by observation, supervision or another suitable competency check?
- Complaint to Learning
Is the concern investigated, answered, themed and reflected in improvement?
- Incident to Action taken
Where applicable, are investigation, notification, communication and preventive action connected?
- Audit finding to Proof of completion
Can the service show an owner, target date, completed action and proof that it worked?
- Feedback to Management review
Are recurring messages visible in management review and decision-making?
- Changed need to Changed support
Were records updated and was the change communicated to the people delivering care?
Check the source before acting
Use this guide beside current CQC guidance.
CQC can change its approach and guidance. Check what applies to your service, sector and circumstances before making day-to-day decisions.
This guide does not reproduce all quality statements, regulations, sector-specific evidence priorities or enforcement guidance.
01
Assessment frameworkFive key questions and quality statements
02Evidence categoriesHow CQC groups the evidence it considers
03Assessing quality and performanceHow evidence is gathered and judgements are made
04People’s experienceWhy lived experience is central to assessment
05August 2026 transition updateContinued testing and planned autumn engagement
06June 2026 pilot noticeWhat CQC is testing and when it plans to evaluate
Turn the guide into a focused review.
Use the private readiness check, view the fictional sample report or discuss a focused independent audit.