- Who runs it
- Care Quality Commission
- Can it affect people?
- Possibly. It may shape what people see, are recommended, flagged, or prioritised for.
- Possible rights impact: Indirect public effect
How much do we know?
A source is a published page or document behind a claim. The label measures what is documented, not whether a system is good or safe. Missing information does not prove that a safeguard is missing.
Sources and further reading
- Care Quality Commission: Risk Categorisation / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records / 30 March 2026
- GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records - official inventory / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records
optional detailFull record and details
The interface and explanatory guides are translated. Record names, record descriptions, quotations, detailed editorial notes, and linked public documents stay in their published language so evidence is not silently changed.
What it does
Categorises care services by risk so the regulator can prioritise attention across adult social care locations.
the story
A care home can look quiet from the outside while warning signs accumulate across notifications, ratings, and partner data. This tool brings those signals together so inspectors know where to look first.
3 bands published outputs are Very High, High, or Medium risk categories
Facts to check
- 01
The published model task is to identify risk of poor-quality care in services CQC regulates.
- 02
The record describes a rules-based algorithm implemented through Power BI reporting.
- 03
Inspectors are expected to use the output as risk context, not as the inspection decision itself.
If this affects someone
Affects regulated care services and the people who rely on inspection prioritisation to catch poor-quality care.
The record says outputs are tested against inspection outcomes and monitored through inspector feedback.
The risk category is an internal prioritisation signal; the inspection and regulatory process remains the route for challenge.
CQC registration, statutory notifications, whistleblower information, safeguarding signals, public feedback, and partner data such as NHS England data.
Sources and further reading
Seeded from an open algorithm register so the record can be read, compared, and improved by editors.
Plain-language text was checked against the linked sources. Older editorial records do not retain model or prompt logs, so this is explanation, never evidence.
Facts to check
- Who runs it
- Care Quality Commission
- Life area
- Regulation
- Proof level
- Source-backed
- Footnotes
- 2
- updated
- 6 months ago
The score orders work, not people.
Review priority rises for rights-sensitive uses, missing sources, unanswered accountability fields, and old evidence. Strong official documentation lowers it. The score is not a verdict on safety, fairness, or legality.
A missing field means the attached public sources did not answer it. Coverage is uneven, publication does not prove performance, and a certificate has a defined boundary.
Previous versions
- Imported15 days agoPartialImported from GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records.
- Seeded source record6 months agoPartialAdded from GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records.
Help check this record.
Add a public source, challenge a claim, or point out a missing way to reach a person.
A submitted name, email, description, source, or correction is used only to verify the record and prevent abuse. It is not published automatically.