The 24 CQC Key Lines of Enquiry in the 2026 Draft Framework

The 24 CQC key lines of enquiry sit at the heart of CQC's draft adult social care framework. It is one of four sector-specific frameworks CQC is bringing in. They change the structure underneath the five key questions.

Today's framework sets out quality statements, written as "we statements". The draft swaps that layer for 24 key lines of enquiry. Each one is a question, with a scope and a list of topics. Each one also carries written rating characteristics describing what Outstanding, Good, Requires improvement and Inadequate look like.

What has not changed: the five key questions, the four rating levels, and the I statements.

How scoring works today, and the open question

CQC publishes the mechanism in full. Most summaries of it are wrong, so this is straight from their guidance.

CQC changed the way it applies scores on 2 December 2024. Today it scores each quality statement it assesses on a scale of 1 to 4:

• 1, evidence shows significant shortfalls

• 2, evidence shows some shortfalls

• 3, evidence shows a good standard

• 4, evidence shows an exceptional standard

Those scores are added up for each key question. The total becomes a percentage of the highest score possible, which is the number of quality statements times four. The percentage converts to a rating using published thresholds:

• 25 to 38 per cent, inadequate

• 39 to 62 per cent, requires improvement

• 63 to 87 per cent, good

• 88 per cent and above, outstanding

Two rules stop a weak area hiding inside a decent average. If the key question score lands in the good range but any single quality statement scored 1, the rating is capped at requires improvement. If it lands in the outstanding range but any statement scored 1 or 2, it is capped at good.

At overall location level, the five key questions carry equal weight. Outstanding overall normally needs at least two key questions rated outstanding and three rated good. Two or more key questions at requires improvement normally gives requires improvement overall. Two or more at inadequate normally gives inadequate.

What changed in December 2024. CQC used to score at evidence category level as well. It stopped. In its own words: "Since 2 December 2024, we no longer score and report findings for registered health and care providers at evidence category level, we now only score at quality statement level." It also confirms "There is no change to the way we aggregate quality statement scores to reach a rating for a key question."

One thing to watch on a draft report. CQC's IT system has not caught up with its method. It still requires inspectors to enter a nominal score against one evidence category to produce the quality statement score. CQC is explicit that this "is not a judgement and does not have any influence on quality statement scores". The same workaround means a draft report "may indicate that 'moderation' has taken place" when no moderation of judgement took place. If you see moderation on your draft report, ask what it refers to before assuming an inspector overrode a score.

The open question. All of that machinery is built on quality statements. The draft drops quality statements and uses key lines of enquiry instead. It also describes each rating in words, rather than in a scoring table. CQC has not said how scoring will work under the new frameworks. We are not going to guess. Watch the final publication, because it decides whether your internal scoring tracker still means anything.

This article is based on the draft adult social care assessment framework, version 9, dated 19 March 2026. It is still a draft. CQC has said it will publish the final frameworks in summer 2026, and start using them at the end of the year. Treat this as a planning document, not settled law.

Your policy index is about to describe a framework that does not exist

Your policies are not filed against key questions. They are filed against whatever structure the framework used when you wrote them. If you mapped your evidence to quality statements, that mapping describes a layer the draft does not use.

The work is not wasted. The underlying topics have largely survived. But labels have moved, some topics merged, and a few were pulled apart. If your policy index still says "we evidence QS12 here", your next inspection becomes a translation exercise under pressure.

The 24 CQC key lines of enquiry in full

Each one is a question. Under each, CQC lists the topic areas it covers. Those topic areas are the useful part, because they tell you which of your policies is in scope.

Safe: seven key lines of enquiry

Safety culture. Is there a positive and equitable safety culture where risks are proactively managed, concerns are listened to, incidents are thoroughly investigated, and lessons are learned?

Topics: safe culture, raising safety concerns, closed cultures, duty of candour.

Managing risks during care and treatment. Are risks to each person monitored and managed so that their care is safe and supportive?

Topics: managing risk, deterioration and emergencies, positive risk taking, people communicating a need or expressing distress, restrictive practice.

Safe systems, pathways and transitions. Are there systems for collaborative working across care pathways, so safety and continuity are prioritised?

Topics: care co-ordination and information sharing, continuity and transitions, referrals, delegation.

Safeguarding. Does the service work with partners and people to protect their rights to live in safety and be free from abuse?

Topics: safeguarding and human rights, deprivation of liberty, bullying, harassment and discrimination, sexual safety and empowerment.

Safe environments and infection prevention and control. Are risks within the care environment detected and managed?

Topics:

• Premises including gas

• Electrical and fire safety

• Equipment

• Infection prevention and control

• Environmental risks including adverse weather

• Digital systems and technology assurance

Safe staffing. Are there enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff who receive adequate support, supervision and development?

Topics:

• Workforce capacity and capability

• Safe recruitment including DBS checks

• Staffing levels and skills mix

• Qualifications

• Learning and competency

• Support and supervision

• Performance management

• People in positions of trust

Safe medicines and treatments. Are medicines and treatments safe and delivered in a timely way?

Topics:

• Roles

• Responsibilities and delegation

• Self-medication

• Safe administration and record keeping

• Consent and covert administration

• Controlled drugs

• Storage and disposal

• Innovative medicines and MedTech safety

• Antimicrobial stewardship

Effective: four key lines of enquiry

Assessing needs. Are people's needs holistically assessed and reviewed with them?

Topics: assessing needs including accessibility and communication needs, person-centred approach, care planning, assessment tools.

Evidence-based care and equitable outcomes. Is care delivered in line with legislation, evidence-based standards and good practice?

Topics: good practice guidance and standards, equitable outcomes, monitoring and improving individual outcomes, nutrition and hydration, service accreditation schemes.

Supporting people to live healthier lives. Are people encouraged and supported to manage their own health and wellbeing?

Topics:

• Health and wellbeing deterioration and prevention

• Supporting access to healthcare services

• Healthier lives promotion

• Keeping well in hot or cold weather

Consent to care and treatment. Are people supported to understand and exercise their right to consent?

Topics: consent, advocacy and support, communicating rights, Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring: three key lines of enquiry

Kindness, compassion and dignity. Are people treated with kindness, empathy, compassion and respect, and is privacy and dignity maintained?

Topics: dignity, respect and privacy, confidentiality, communication, caring and compassion, emotional wellbeing, anticipating need.

Person-centred care. Do people receive personalised care that puts them at the centre of their choices?

Topics: appropriate and personalised care, empowerment and decision making, meeting personal, cultural, social, spiritual and religious needs.

Independence, choice and control. Are people supported to maintain independence, relationships and choice?

Topics:

• Supporting communication and lifestyle choice

• Visiting rights and access to community

• Supporting relationships and networks

• Specialist equipment

• Supporting independence and personal goals

• Activities and wellbeing

• DNACPR and ReSPECT

• Advance statements

• End of life and palliative care

Responsive: four key lines of enquiry

Care provision, integration and continuity. Is care co-ordinated and delivered in a flexible, joined-up way?

Topics: collaborative and flexible working, provision of services, continuity of care.

Listening to and responding to feedback. Are people supported to give feedback and confident action will follow?

Topics: feedback and complaints, access to advocacy, unpaid carer support.

Timely and equitable access. Can everyone access equitable and timely care?

Topics: access to services, accessible premises and equipment, reasonable adjustments and communication needs, digital exclusion.

Equity in experiences. Is care tailored to ensure equity in experiences?

Topics:

• Barriers experienced during care

• Inequalities in experience

• Reasonable adjustments

• Equality and human rights duties

• Voices seldom heard

• Accessibility and communication

• Translation and interpreting

Well-led: six key lines of enquiry

Strategic direction. Is there a clear vision and strategy supporting current and future needs?

Topics: strategy and vision, values and culture, service sustainability, staff feedback.

Workforce equity and culture. Is there an inclusive culture that supports wellbeing and speaking up, and tackles workforce inequalities?

Topics: workforce equality, diversity and inclusion, workplace discrimination, speaking up culture, whistleblowing, staff wellbeing.

Capable and compassionate leaders. Do leaders have the capability and experience to lead effectively?

Topics:

• Leadership competency and development

• Safe recruitment of leaders and the Fit and Proper Person Requirement

• Compassionate leadership

• Role expectations and accountability

Governance and management. Are there clear roles, responsibilities and systems of accountability?

Topics:

• Roles and accountability

• Governance and quality assurance

• Service risk management

• Cyber security and the Data Security and Protection Toolkit

• Data protection and GDPR

• Statutory and regulatory requirements

• Workforce planning

• Records and digital records

Partnerships and communities. Is the service working collaboratively with people who use it and with partners?

Topics: sharing good practice and learning, partnership working, involvement and coproduction.

Improvement, innovation and learning. Does the service embed continuous improvement?

Topics: innovation, learning and improvement, research.

Three jobs to do now, in order

One: re-label your policy index. Take the index you built against the quality statements and write the new key line of enquiry beside each policy. Most map cleanly. The ones that do not are the ones worth your attention, because they are usually the topics that were split or merged.

Two: read the topic areas, not the headline questions. The gaps hide there. Cyber security and the Data Security and Protection Toolkit now sit under governance. Adverse weather sits under safe environments. Antimicrobial stewardship sits under medicines. These catch services out because they are new enough that most policy libraries say nothing about them.

Three: stop mapping by hand. If you keep a spreadsheet mapping policies to a framework, you will rebuild it every time the regulator moves. HeroDocs works out which CQC areas your documents already cover, and what is missing from each one. When the framework changes, the mapping changes with it.

If you would rather check one policy first, the free CQC policy checker reads a document and tells you what is missing against current expectations. No account needed.

What not to do

Do not rewrite every policy. The draft is a draft, the topics have mostly survived, and a library rewritten in a panic is worse than one slightly out of date. Change the index, find the genuine gaps, and wait for the final framework before rewording policies that already work.

Do not throw away your quality statement mapping either. Quality statements stay in force until the new frameworks start. When the final version lands, compare the two. That is the fastest way to check your coverage.

Sources

• CQC, draft adult social care assessment framework, version 9, 19 March 2026. Published with the consultation on draft sector-specific assessment frameworks, page last updated 15 June 2026. Consultation closed 12 June 2026.

• CQC, "Our improvement plans for 2026": final assessment frameworks to be published in summer 2026, implementation beginning at the end of the year.

• CQC, "Assessment framework": the current framework is "made up of 5 key questions and, under each key question, a set of quality statements".

• CQC, "Evidence categories": six categories of evidence used to judge performance against each quality statement.

• CQC, "How we reach a rating (assessments from December 2024)": the 1 to 4 quality statement scale, the key question percentage thresholds, the capping rules and the aggregation principles.

• CQC, "Update to our current scoring approach", published 19 May 2025: no scoring at evidence category level since 2 December 2024, the IT workaround, and what "moderation" means on a draft report.

Last checked: 21 September 2026. This covers a draft framework and will be updated when CQC publishes the final version.