CQC inspection numbers: falling short of even modest ambitions

In 2019, CQC assessed and rated 15,757 locations of all service types. By 2023 that figure had dropped to 6,484 and a shocking 3,253 in 2024. Their organisational paralysis has been well publicised and is not the focus of this article.   

In April 2025, CQC set itself a target of carrying out 9,000 assessments, across all services by September 2026, or 500 a month.  As they carried out an average of 1,313 inspections per month in 2019, that stated target was only 38% of previous levels.   

While no one thought this was anywhere near sufficient to provide effective oversight of services, it would have been a marked improvement on CQC’s recent performance. So, how has it gone?  

In short, not well.  

From April 2025 to 13 January 2026 (when I wrote this article) CQC had published 4,337 reports across all services, 4,337 reports in 9.5 months or 456.5 reports a month. Clearly CQC is falling behind even their own woefully unambitious target. CQC’s response is even more surprising, announcing on 23 December 2025 they were ‘ahead of target’ having published 4,308 assessments, with seemingly no awareness of just how poor this figure is. I will concede that I have no idea what internal targets CQC have set and whether they are planning to ‘ramp up’ inspections in 2026.  

When we break the figures down further, and look specifically at care homes and home care, the  picture becomes even more concerning. Looking at the assessment figures in 2025 for the local authorities with the highest number of social care settings, it’s clear that the assessment numbers are deficient:

How can CQC say they are ‘on track’ and ‘ahead of target’ when they are inspecting such a small percentage of services?  

Apart from the obvious points set out above, the combined figures for care homes and home care also give an indication of CQC’s effectiveness as a regulator:

Or in graph form:  

In 2025, 3,166 assessments of care homes and home care services were published. Of those assessments:  

• 68 were rated Outstanding (2.14%) 
• 2001 were rated Good (63.2%) 
• 863 were rated Requires Improvement (27.26%)  
• 197 were rated Inadequate (6.22%) 
• 37 were not rated (1.17%)  

I can’t help but compare that to the figures emerging from across the border in Wales – with 84% of services are rated as Good. Is care truly that much better across the bridge or is the difference in the stats reflective of Wales having a regulatory system that appears to deliver more timely inspections, clearer outcomes, and greater stability for both providers and the public?  

While no regulator is without challenges, Care Inspectorate Wales’ results seem to indicate that that effective, functioning oversight of social care is achievable. CQC’s previous performance proves it can be done!  

CQC is currently failing to meet even its own scaled-back ambitions. Assessment numbers remain below historic levels, progress against stated targets is slow, and the consequences are being felt across adult social care 

Effective regulation is not an optional extra – it is fundamental to safety, quality, and public confidence. If CQC cannot meet a target that was widely regarded as inadequate from the outset, serious questions must be asked about capacity, leadership, and the future credibility of the regulatory system. 

Keara Bowgen-Nicholas is a Senior Associate in RWK Goodmans Health & Social Care Regulatory Team