Written by Stephanie Austin, Founder & Lead Trainer, Prima Cura Training
Last Reviewed: March 2026
Next Review Due: March 2027 (or sooner if CQC framework changes)
Over the last couple of years, there has been a steady undercurrent of uncertainty around CQC reform, and much of that uncertainty centres on what is happening with the CQC Quality Statements 2026 UK framework and whether providers need to prepare for something fundamentally different.
Before we go any further, let’s define clearly what we are actually talking about.
The CQC Quality Statements are 34 outcome-focused standards used under the Single Assessment Framework to assess whether regulated services in England meet the Fundamental Standards set out in the Health and Social Care Act. They sit beneath the five key inspection questions and are used to determine evidence gathering and ratings.
The full list of all 34 statements is published by CQC, and can be reviewed directly here.
It has not been dramatic, but it has been persistent. Conversations in managers’ meetings, comments in provider forums, passing remarks during training sessions — all circling around the same concern: are the CQC Quality Statements about to change again, and if so, what does that mean for us?
When you are responsible for governance in a regulated service, even small regulatory shifts can feel significant. The time investment in policies, audits, training matrices and quality monitoring is substantial, and nobody wants to rebuild systems unnecessarily.
So let’s take a steady look at where things actually stand in 2026.
As of now, the 34 CQC Quality Statements under the Single Assessment Framework remain fully operational. They are still being used in inspections. They still contribute to ratings. They still reflect compliance with statutory duties under UK legislation. There is no replacement framework currently in force.
That is the practical reality providers need to work from.
It would be misleading to say nothing has changed. CQC has openly acknowledged that implementation of the Single Assessment Framework has not been without challenges. There have been discussions around consistency, inspector calibration, and clarity in rating characteristics. Reform conversations are happening at the organisational level within CQC.
You can follow official updates via CQC Improving How We Work.
However, refinement of a system is not the same as replacing it. As of March 2026:
For providers, that means governance should continue to align with the current structure rather than waiting for a hypothetical reset.
The Quality Statements were introduced to replace the old Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOEs), which many providers found overly detailed and checklist-driven. The aim was to simplify inspection and focus more clearly on outcomes and lived experience.
The 34 statements sit beneath the five familiar key questions:
Those pillars have not disappeared, and they remain central to how CQC frames quality.
If you review the published framework via CQC Single Assessment Framework, you will see that each Quality Statement describes what good looks like in practice, not just what documentation should exist.
From a training and compliance perspective, what stands out in well-performing services is that staff can articulate these expectations in everyday language. They understand what safety means beyond a risk assessment template. They understand what responsive care looks like beyond a care plan review date.
The statements are not meant to sit in a folder, they are meant to describe culture.
This is where it becomes important to move beyond framework language and back to statute.
The Quality Statements are grounded in:
When inspectors assess a statement under “Safe”, they are effectively assessing compliance with Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment). When safeguarding is discussed, Regulation 13 is engaged.
Leadership and oversight are examined through the lens of Regulation 17 (Good governance). Staffing capability links to Regulation 18. Transparency reflects Regulation 20 (Duty of candour).
The statutory basis remains unchanged, and you can review enforcement expectations through CQC Fundamental Standards.
One pattern during governance training sessions is the assumption that inspection is primarily about how well a service presents on the day. In reality, the current system is cumulative and evidence-based.
Inspectors gather information from multiple sources, including people’s experiences, staff interviews, direct observation, documentation, performance data and stakeholder feedback.
Each relevant Quality Statement is assessed against available evidence. Those statement-level judgements contribute to ratings under each key question, and those ratings then combine to form the overall judgement of Outstanding, Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate.
The methodology is set out here: How CQC Calculates Ratings.
The shift over recent years has been away from episodic inspection and towards continuous evidence gathering. That is why live audit cycles, up-to-date training matrices and demonstrable learning from incidents carry so much weight.
When inspectors ask, “How do you know this is working?”, they are asking about systems, not paperwork.
If the framework remains in place, the most effective strategy is not to wait for reform but to strengthen clarity.
In services that perform well under inspection, governance tends to feel calm rather than frantic. Leaders can explain risk monitoring without referring to a script. Audit findings lead to changes that staff can describe. Incident themes are discussed openly. Supervisions are used to develop practice rather than complete a requirement.
Regulation 17 (Good governance) underpins much of this. If governance is weak, it often shows quickly across multiple Quality Statements.
A practical mapping exercise can help demonstrate alignment:
| Quality Focus | Linked Regulation | Evidence Examples |
| Safe care | Reg 12 | Risk assessments, incident trend analysis, and medication audits |
| Safeguarding | Reg 13 | Training records, safeguarding referrals, and DBS tracking |
| Governance | Reg 17 | Audit reviews, quality meetings, and KPI dashboards |
| Staffing | Reg 18 | Recruitment checks, competency assessments |
| Candour | Reg 20 | Disclosure records, documented learning |
This structure makes inspection conversations clearer because alignment is visible rather than implied.
Yes. The 34 Quality Statements remain the operational assessment framework under the Single Assessment Framework in England.
The statements themselves are inspection tools. However, they reflect compliance with legally binding regulations under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
As of March 2026, no replacement framework has been implemented. Consultation and refinement discussions are ongoing, but inspections continue under the current structure.
Each relevant statement is assessed using evidence gathered from multiple sources. Those scores contribute to the ratings under Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, which then determine the overall rating.
Yes. The framework applies across regulated activities in England, although inspectors focus on statements most relevant to each service type.
By mapping regulations to Quality Statements, maintaining live audit cycles, evidencing learning from incidents, and ensuring workforce competence through structured training such as the Care Certificate.
Regulatory reform discussions can create a subtle tension within services, particularly when workloads are already high. It can feel risky to invest heavily in strengthening systems if change appears imminent.
However, the statutory duties have not shifted. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 remains in force. The Care Act 2014 remains active. The Fundamental Standards remain enforceable. And as of 2026, the 34 Quality Statements remain the framework through which CQC assesses quality.
If your systems are genuinely embedded, your leadership oversight is visible, and your culture prioritises safety and dignity, then you are not simply reacting to inspection. You are building sustainable compliance.
Framework refinement may come. But strong governance, rooted in law and lived practice, will remain constant.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for general informational purposes and reflects published CQC guidance and UK legislation as of March 2026. It does not constitute legal advice. Providers should refer directly to official CQC publications and seek independent legal or regulatory advice where appropriate when interpreting their obligations.
Contact us to explore what training support is best for you right now. or fill in the form below and I’ll be in touch.