Most care homes in England hold a positive CQC rating. In April 2024, around 82% of adult social care services were rated 'good' or 'outstanding' by the Care Quality Commission, made up of 78% 'good' and 4% 'outstanding' (The King's Fund, Social Care 360, using CQC data, April 2024, subject to revision).
That headline hides two things worth understanding before relying on a rating: which four levels the CQC uses, and how up to date any single rating is likely to be. This page pulls the published statistics together, shows how the picture has changed, and explains what the data can and cannot tell a family comparing homes. It also links through to the wider the care home sector data and, for cost as well as quality, to our guide on Care Home Fees. Figures are cited at each point of use and are current as at the dates shown.
Key figures at a glance
Every headline below comes from a named official or clearly attributed source, with its reference period and a link. Two datasets sit side by side: the mature ratings held under the CQC's previous inspection framework, and newer coverage and timeliness data from a 2024 government review of how the CQC operates. Each figure is rounded as published and may be revised.
| Statistic | Figure | Source and period |
|---|---|---|
| Adult social care services rated 'good' or 'outstanding' | 82% (78% good, 4% outstanding) | King's Fund, using CQC data, April 2024 |
| Rated 'requires improvement' | 16% | King's Fund / CQC, April 2024 |
| Rated 'inadequate' | 1% | King's Fund / CQC, April 2024 |
| Social care locations regulated by the CQC | 29,301 | gov.uk analysis of CQC data, as at 30 July 2024 |
| Social care locations that held a CQC rating | 82% (18% never rated) | gov.uk analysis of CQC data, as at 30 July 2024 |
| Average age of a CQC rating (all sectors) | about 3 years 11 months | gov.uk analysis of CQC data, as at 30 July 2024 |
| Average wait to re-inspect an 'inadequate' social care service | 132 days | gov.uk analysis of CQC data, as at 30 July 2024 |
| Average wait to re-inspect a 'requires improvement' service | 361 days | gov.uk analysis of CQC data, as at 30 July 2024 |
All figures rounded as published and subject to change. The King's Fund figures use CQC ratings data; the gov.uk figures come from the 2024 independent review of the CQC's operational effectiveness.
How the CQC rates care homes
The CQC gives each rated service one of four grades: outstanding, good, requires improvement, or inadequate. Inspectors judge whether a service is safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led, then combine those into an overall rating (CQC, Our ratings and scores, as at July 2026). The scale applies across England only.
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland run separate regulators. The CQC covers England. Care services in Scotland are regulated by the Care Inspectorate, in Wales by Care Inspectorate Wales, and in Northern Ireland by the RQIA, each with its own grading approach, so CQC ratings statistics describe England alone. If you are comparing homes across a border, it can be worth checking the relevant national regulator directly.
The current ratings distribution
Under the CQC's established inspection framework, care quality clustered firmly in the middle-to-top grades. In April 2024, 4% of adult social care services were rated 'outstanding', 78% 'good', 16% 'requires improvement' and 1% 'inadequate' (King's Fund, using CQC data, April 2024, figures rounded, subject to revision). Put another way, roughly one in six services sat below 'good'.
| Rating | Share of services (April 2024) |
|---|---|
| Outstanding | 4% |
| Good | 78% |
| Requires improvement | 16% |
| Inadequate | 1% |
Source: The King's Fund, Social Care 360: Quality, using CQC ratings data, April 2024. Percentages are rounded and may not sum to 100. Subject to change.
A newer picture reads differently, and the reason matters. Since January 2024 the CQC has been moving to a single assessment framework, and it has prioritised services where data suggested higher risk. Ratings published under that framework are therefore not representative of all services. On that risk-weighted basis, one analysis put the split at 2.1% outstanding, 67% good, 26.4% requires improvement and 4.1% inadequate (Nuffield Trust, QualityWatch, 2025, subject to revision). The CQC itself cautions against comparing this with earlier years, so the two datasets are best read separately rather than as a decline.
How current is the ratings data?
A rating is a snapshot, and many snapshots are old. A 2024 independent review of the CQC found the average age of a rating across all sectors had roughly doubled since 2020, to about 3 years and 11 months (gov.uk analysis of CQC data, as at 30 July 2024). For social care, 82% of locations held a rating, so around 18% had never been rated at all.
Timeliness after a poor grade also varies. The same review found the CQC took, on average, 132 days to re-inspect a social care service rated 'inadequate' and 361 days for one rated 'requires improvement', with 268 active 'inadequate' locations and 3,537 'requires improvement' locations not yet re-inspected (gov.uk analysis of CQC data, as at 30 July 2024). In practice, a rating can lag well behind a home's current management, staffing or ownership.
The trend over time
Ratings have been broadly stable rather than steadily rising or falling. The April 2024 split of 4% outstanding, 78% good, 16% requires improvement and 1% inadequate was very similar to April 2023, and the overall pattern has held fairly steady since 2018, when the first full programme of inspections under the previous framework was completed (King's Fund, using CQC data, April 2024, subject to revision).
| Measure | April 2023 | April 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| Good or outstanding | broadly similar | 82% |
| Requires improvement | broadly similar | 16% |
| Inadequate | broadly similar | 1% |
Source: The King's Fund, Social Care 360: Quality, using CQC ratings data. The King's Fund describes the 2024 and 2023 distributions as very similar; year-on-year percentages are rounded and subject to revision.
One long-running concern sits underneath the stability. As at March 2020, around 3% of care homes had never been rated better than 'requires improvement', pointing to a group of services that struggle to improve rather than a sector-wide slide (King's Fund, using CQC data, March 2020, subject to revision).
What the numbers mean
Read together, the figures suggest most homes meet the standard while the ratings system itself lags. With about 82% of services good or outstanding in April 2024 (King's Fund / CQC) but an average rating nearly four years old (gov.uk, as at 30 July 2024), a headline grade is a useful starting point rather than a live verdict.
In our view, three cautions follow from the data, though every family's situation differs. First, check the inspection date on any rating, because a grade can predate a change of manager or owner. Second, read the full report, not just the badge, since the five underlying questions can reveal a home that is caring but stretched on staffing, or vice versa. Third, remember that quality and cost are separate questions. A strong CQC rating says little about the fees, which is why many people look at rating and price together; our guide to Care Home Fees and the wider the care home sector data set out the money side.
Cost is where later-life planning meets this data. Anyone weighing how to meet future care costs sometimes asks whether assets can be moved out of reach of a means test. Local authorities can review whether assets were given away deliberately to reduce a care contribution under the deprivation of assets rules, and such transfers can be challenged, so gifting is not a reliable route around fees. Sensible care fees planning is about understanding the rules and limiting the impact of care costs within them, and it can be worth discussing with a qualified professional. Our estate planning guide sets the wider context.
Sources and methodology
This page draws on two named datasets. Ratings distributions come from The King's Fund Social Care 360, which uses published CQC ratings data. Coverage, ageing and re-inspection figures come from the 2024 independent review of the CQC's operational effectiveness, published on gov.uk. The rating scale itself is defined by the CQC. Figures are quoted as published, rounded as in the source, and are subject to revision.
- The King's Fund, Social Care 360: Quality, using CQC ratings data, April 2024 and earlier years (kingsfund.org.uk).
- Analysis of Care Quality Commission data on inspections, assessments and ratings, 2014 to 2024, as at 30 July 2024 (gov.uk).
- Nuffield Trust, QualityWatch, adult social care services, single assessment framework data, 2025 (nuffieldtrust.org.uk).
- Care Quality Commission, Our ratings and scores, as at July 2026 (cqc.org.uk).
Frequently asked questions
What percentage of care homes are rated good or outstanding by the CQC?
In April 2024 about 82% of adult social care services in England were rated good or outstanding, made up of 78% good and 4% outstanding (King's Fund, using CQC data, April 2024, subject to revision). Care homes are the largest part of that group, though the figure covers all adult social care services, not homes alone.
What do the four CQC ratings mean?
The CQC uses four levels: outstanding, good, requires improvement, and inadequate. Inspectors assess whether a service is safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led, then combine those into an overall grade (CQC, as at July 2026). The scale applies in England only; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland use separate regulators and their own approaches.
How up to date are CQC ratings?
Often less current than people assume. A 2024 government review found the average age of a rating across all sectors was about 3 years and 11 months, roughly double the level in 2020 (gov.uk analysis of CQC data, as at 30 July 2024). A rating can predate changes in staff or ownership, so checking the inspection date generally helps.
Why do newer CQC figures look worse?
Since January 2024 the CQC has assessed services under a single assessment framework and has prioritised those flagged as higher risk, so recent ratings are not representative of all services. A risk-weighted analysis put more services below good on that basis (Nuffield Trust, QualityWatch, 2025, subject to revision). The CQC advises against comparing these with earlier years.
Do CQC ratings tell you anything about care home fees?
No. A CQC rating measures quality of care, not price, and the two can move independently. Many people look at quality and cost together when comparing homes. Our guide to Care Home Fees and the wider the care home sector data cover the money side, while ratings cover quality.
Can moving assets around change a care fees means test?
Not reliably. Local authorities can review whether assets were deliberately given away to reduce a care contribution under the deprivation of assets rules, and such transfers can be challenged. Care fees planning is better framed as understanding the rules and mitigating the impact of care costs within them. Many people discuss this with a qualified professional; our estate planning guide gives context.