The impact of LGA Preparation for Assurance Peer Challenges

The Local Government Association’s (LGA) Adult Social Care Preparation for Assurance Peer Challenge programme, launched in July 2022, supports councils in preparing for Care Quality Commission (CQC) assessments under the Single Assessment Framework. This evaluation assesses the programme’s impact on improving adult social care services, based on a cross-analysis of seventeen LGA peer challenge reports and corresponding CQC Local Authority Assessments, supplemented by findings from thirty-one councils awaiting CQC reports.

Key Findings

The peer challenge programme has significantly supported councils in identifying and acting on improvement priorities. Five recurring themes emerged where peer challenges drove progress:

1. Access, Timeliness, and Throughput: Peer recommendations led to significant reductions in assessment and review backlogs. 

2. Prevention, Reablement, and ‘Home First’: Councils strengthened reablement services, with many achieving above-national-average outcomes.

3. Market Shaping and Quality Assurance: Peer advice improved market management and provider engagement, though gaps in specialist provision persisted.

4. Governance and Data Use: Enhanced performance dashboards and governance structures supported better oversight, contributing to higher CQC ratings.

5. Coproduction, Carers, and Equity: Councils advanced co-production and carers’ support, with notable improvements in carers’ assessments and equity initiatives.;

Impact and Challenges

The impact of the peer challenges is clear where councils were able to translate peer recommendations into time-bound, measurable delivery plans, with CQC often validating improvements. However, where operational pressures delayed implementation, improvements were “in progress” but not fully embedded by CQC’s assessment, particularly in safeguarding, market capacity, and equity. Common barriers included persistent backlogs, weak out-of-hours assurance, and data focused on activity rather than outcomes.

Recommendations for councils awaiting CQC assessment

The councils yet to be assessed should treat peer challenge findings as a roadmap, focusing on:

• Clear, time-bound delivery plans with measurable trajectories.
• Evidencing outcomes, not just activity, particularly in reablement and lived experience.
• Closing governance gaps in safeguarding and out-of-hours services.
• Strengthening carers’ support, equity, and market diversification.

Conclusion

The LGA peer challenge programme has proven effective in guiding councils toward CQC readiness, with a strong relationship between peer findings and CQC assessments. Councils that act decisively on peer recommendations, prioritizing pace and outcome measurement, are best positioned for positive CQC outcomes. The LGA will continue to refine the future adults peer challenge offer to emphasize rapid implementation and robust evidence capture.

Contact

For further details, contact Marcus Coulson, Senior Adviser, LGA, email: [email protected] or visit: Adult social care peer challenges | Local Government Association

The Local Government Association’s (LGA) Adult Social Care Preparation for Assurance Peer Challenge programme was launched in July 2022 to support councils to prepare for the return of formal assessment and regulation by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). After a decade without direct external assessment, the introduction of the CQC’s Single Assessment Framework represented a significant shift for the sector, with councils required to evidence their strengths and demonstrate robust improvement plans against nine quality statements (QS).

The peer challenge programme was designed to provide councils with a structured opportunity to reflect honestly on their strengths and weaknesses, test their readiness for CQC assurance, and prioritise areas requiring improvement. This peer challenge programme is not part of the Department of Health and Social Care funded PCH programme meaning there is a charge of £23,000 (plus expenses) for each one. 

A sector-led improvement model

The programme is grounded in the LGA’s long-standing commitment to sector-led improvement (SLI). This philosophy is underpinned by three core principles:

• Councils are responsible for their own performance. Improvement must be owned locally to be sustainable.
• Stronger local accountability drives better outcomes. Transparent scrutiny by elected members and local partners provides a powerful driver for change.
• Councils share collective responsibility for the sector’s performance. Improvement is not an individual endeavour but part of a system-wide commitment to raise standards across local government. 

The peer challenge methodology

Each Preparation for Assurance Peer Challenge is delivered by a team of six senior adult social care leaders, an experienced elected member, an expert by experience and operational managers drawn from councils across England. Being of, and from, the sector themselves it is typical that the accumulated experience of delivering services in adult social care departments in peer challenge teams can total 160+ years. This level of expertise and diversity of perspective enables peers to test practice, strategy and culture against real-world challenges faced elsewhere in the sector. 

There is typically a three-month lead in time where the council prepares as self-assessment and completes the interview arrangements as well as providing other documents for the peer team to read. Before arriving onsite the peer team familiarise themselves with the work of the adult social care department and members of the team speak to their counterparts in the council. 

The on-site phase typically lasts three days, during which the peer team: 

• Engages with people with a lived experience, frontline staff, partners, politicians and senior officers.
• Reviews case files, performance data, strategies and governance documents.
• Provides structured and informal feedback on how the council is positioned to deliver safe, effective, and person-centred services — and how to evidence these to CQC. 

Councils and peers alike report that the informal conversations — peer-to-peer exchanges about “what works” — are among the most valued elements of the process, creating a learning environment that goes beyond compliance to foster shared problem-solving. 

Since July 2022, 48 peer challenges have been completed, offering a rich evidence base of recurring themes, strengths and risks. 

Purpose of this evaluation

This report evaluates the extent to which the peer challenge programme has supported councils to improve adult social care services in advance of CQC assessment. Specifically, it asks: 

1. To what extent did the peer challenge process help councils identify and act on the right priorities for improvement?
2. How far is there evidence, in published CQC Local Authority Assessments, that councils improved in areas flagged by peer teams?
3. What lessons can be drawn to strengthen the peer challenge model now that CQC assurance is firmly in place and councils better understand the regulatory process? 

The analysis compares the findings and recommendations of peer challenge reports with the 17 CQC Local Authority Assessments published at the time of writing. This comparative method enables us to identify: 

• Areas where peer challenges and CQC assessments are in clear alignment.
• Evidence that peer recommendations were acted upon and later validated by CQC.
• Gaps where peer challenges identified risks, but improvement had not yet materialised at the point of CQC assessment. 

Early evidence of impact

The cross-analysis indicates that the peer challenge programme has had a positive and material impact on councils’ improvement journeys. While causality cannot always be proven, there are multiple examples where CQC explicitly attributes improvements to actions taken following a peer challenge.

• Council A, CQC records that the council established a new specialist autism and learning disability (LD) team “following recommendations of an LGA peer challenge in 2022” — a rare but important direct acknowledgement of peer challenge influence.
• In Council B, the peer challenge flagged long waits at the “front door.” By the time of CQC’s 2025 assessment, average call waits had fallen dramatically from nearly 40 minutes (January 2024) to just 47 seconds (November 2024), supported by voluntary sector advisors embedded in the Contact Centre.
• In Council C, peers urged tighter management of assessment and review backlogs. CQC later reported significant reductions (39per cent fewer people waiting for Care Act assessments and a 37per cent reduction in maximum review waits) alongside strong reablement outcomes.
• In Council D, peers praised integrated reablement as “best practice”. CQC validated this with data showing 4.86per cent of people aged 65+ discharged with reablement (vs 2.91per cent nationally) and 82.81per cent at home after 91 days.
• In Council E, peers recommended stronger focus on equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI). CQC subsequently highlighted the rollout of “Shaping our Services” across the market and awarded an Outstanding-level score (4/4) for Partnerships and Communities, with EDI and coproduction explicitly cited. 

Across these and other councils, the strongest gains are evident where local leaders translated peer team advice into time-bound delivery plans with measurable performance trajectories, enabling both improvement and assurance evidence. 

Where improvement remained “in flight” 

It is equally clear that in some councils, the peer challenge identified the right risks, but operational pressures meant improvements were still embedding when CQC visited. These examples illustrate that while peer challenges consistently pointed councils in the right direction, delivery pace and evidence capture were decisive in whether CQC recognised improvements within its assessment window. 

Conclusion to the introduction 

Taken together, the evidence demonstrates that the LGA Adult Social Care Preparation for Assurance Peer Challenge programme has been an effective mechanism for supporting councils to focus on the right improvement priorities and, in many cases, to accelerate action. The programme has had greatest impact where councils swiftly converted peer team feedback into clear delivery trajectories, governance oversight, and measurable outcomes. Where operational capacity constraints slowed progress, peer recommendations remain valid, but outcomes were not yet embedded by the time of assessment. 

The remainder of this report will: 

• Analyse themes of alignment between peer challenges and CQC assessments.
• Examine cases where improvement was not yet evident and the reasons why.
• Provide a comparative evidence table of peer challenge prompts versus CQC findings.
• Set out recommendations for the future of the peer challenge programme, now that CQC assessment is embedded across the sector.

The analysis set out in this report is based on a robust and systematic methodology, designed to provide a credible, evidence-based assessment of the impact of the LGA ‘Preparation for Assurance’ peer challenges. The primary sources of data are the 17 peer challenge reports and the corresponding CQC Local Authority Assessment reports for the same councils. These documents were supplied specifically for the purpose of this evaluation and offer a rich and detailed account of the performance and improvement journeys of the authorities concerned.

At the heart of the methodology is a detailed cross-analysis of the two sets of reports. For each of the 17 authorities, the LGA peer challenge report was examined to identify the key ‘areas for consideration’ and recommendations made by the peer team. These were then mapped against the findings of the relevant CQC assessment report, published between six and eighteen months after the peer challenge. This mapping exercise enabled a direct comparison between the issues raised during the peer challenge and CQC’s subsequent assessment of the council’s performance. The analysis focused on areas of alignment and divergence between the two perspectives, and on assessing whether the issues highlighted by the LGA had shown demonstrable improvement by the time of CQC’s visit.

To preserve the confidentiality of the authorities included in this study, council names have been anonymised and are referred to throughout as ‘Council A’, Council B’, and so on. This approach makes it possible to present detailed evidence and case vignettes without compromising anonymity. It should be noted that the analysis is restricted to the 17 peer challenges for which both an LGA report and a CQC assessment report were available; no other peer challenges or CQC assessments have been included.

The thematic analysis presented in the following section was developed by systematically coding the findings of the cross-analysis. Recurring themes and patterns were identified from the comparison of peer challenge and CQC reports across all 17 cases. The five key themes discussed in this report represent the areas where the impact of peer challenges was most consistently visible.

The cross-analysis of the 17 LGA ‘Preparation for Assurance’ peer challenges and their corresponding CQC assessment reports reveals a number of key themes where peer challenges have had a demonstrable impact on council improvement. This section provides a detailed analysis of these themes, supported by evidence from the case studies.

1) Access, timeliness and throughput

A consistent theme across many of the peer challenges was the identification of risks associated with waiting lists for Care Act assessments, reviews, and occupational therapy (OT) equipment. Peer teams frequently recommended that councils develop risk-based triage systems, establish clear and visible trajectories for reducing backlogs, and consider allocating additional capacity to address these issues. The subsequent CQC assessments often provided evidence of significant progress in these areas. For example, in the case of Council F, the CQC assessment published in May 2025 reported a 47 per cent reduction in assessment backlogs and a 39 per cent reduction in review backlogs, following a peer challenge in December 2023 that had highlighted these as key areas for improvement. Similarly, Council I saw a marked reduction in assessment waits from 226 to 42 in 2024, following a peer challenge in March 2024 that had prioritised throughput and carers. However, it is also important to note that in some councils, whilst improvements were made, persistent backlogs and bottlenecks continued to impact on the overall CQC rating.

2) Prevention, reablement and ‘home first’

The peer challenges consistently encouraged councils to strengthen their reablement services and to reduce their reliance on bed-based care pathways. The CQC assessments provide strong evidence that this advice was often acted upon, with many councils demonstrating improved outcomes in reablement and an expansion of ‘home first’ pathways. For instance, Council E’s CQC assessment in 2025 reported that 86.96 per cent of people were at home 91 days after discharge from hospital, a figure that was above the national average. This followed a peer challenge in early 2023 that had prioritised technology-enabled care and reablement. Similarly, Council H’s CQC assessment in August 2025 noted strong reablement outcomes, with 90.32 per cent of people at home 91 days after discharge. Whilst the CQC reports often praised the progress made in these areas, they also frequently noted that the scale of impact was limited by capacity and reach, suggesting that this remains an ongoing area for development for many councils.

3) Market shaping, Quality Assurance and provider relationships

The peer challenges often played a crucial role in supporting councils to develop more strategic approaches to market shaping and to strengthen their quality assurance (QA) frameworks. Peer teams frequently recommended the use of tools such as the Provider Assessment and Market Management Solution (PAMMS) and the development of more collaborative relationships with providers. The CQC assessments provide evidence that this advice was often heeded, with many councils demonstrating maturing QA frameworks and more consistent engagement with the provider market. For example, the CQC assessment of Council A in June 2025 noted that the council had made good progress in market management, including the remodelling of its home care framework and the rollout of PAMMS. This followed a peer challenge in July 2022 that had highlighted market shaping as a key priority. However, the CQC reports also frequently identified persistent gaps in the market for complex needs and specialist housing, indicating that this remains a significant challenge for many local authorities.

4) Governance, performance and the use of data

The peer challenges were often instrumental in encouraging councils to strengthen their governance structures and to develop more robust performance management frameworks. Peer teams frequently recommended the use of real-time dashboards and the introduction of more routine member oversight of performance. The CQC assessments provide clear evidence that councils that invested in these areas after a peer challenge were better able to demonstrate progress and to manage risk. For example, the CQC assessment of Council B in August 2025 noted that the council had established live dashboards and a Practice Governance Board, following a peer challenge in June 2023 that had urged the council to strengthen its analytics and governance. This investment in data and performance management was a key factor in the council achieving an overall ‘Good’ rating from the CQC.

5) Coproduction, carers and equity

A final key theme that emerged from the analysis was the impact of the peer challenges on strengthening co-production, improving the offer for carers, and promoting equity. Peer teams frequently highlighted the need for councils to deepen their engagement with people with lived experience and to refresh their carers’ strategies. The CQC assessments often acknowledged the progress that had been made in these areas, with many councils having established clearer structures for co-production and having launched new carers’ offers. For example, the CQC assessment of Council E in 2025 noted that the council had launched a new co-produced All-Age Carers core offer in 2024, which had led to a 26 per cent increase in carers’ assessments. However, the CQC reports also frequently pointed to ongoing challenges in ensuring equity of access and outcomes for all groups, and in ensuring that the voice of carers was consistently heard and acted upon.

Case 1

Peer challenge focus: Peer challenge emphasised specialist Learning Disability (LD)/autism pathways, market shaping, dashboards, and discharge ‘home first’.

What CQC later found: Report explicitly attributes creation of a new autism/LD team to recommendations from the LGA peer challenge. Evidence of progress on dashboards, market management and discharge pathways; backlogs and transitions remained areas to improve.

Case 2

Peer challenge focus: Peer challenge urged a reset of access/contact, stronger analytics and delivery governance, and a partnership ‘reset’.

What CQC later found: CQC recorded dramatic improvement in Contact Centre performance (~47 seconds average wait by Nov 2024 vs ~40 minutes in Jan 2024) with Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) advisors embedded; live dashboards and a Practice Governance Board established. Overall rating Good; pathway and integration gaps remained.

Case 3

Peer challenge focus: Peer challenge prioritised backlog reduction, carers, QA and technology-enabled care.

What CQC later found: CQC reported people waiting for Care Act assessments down 39per cent and maximum review waits down 37 per cent; 86.96 per cent at home 91 days post-discharge; coproduced carers offer with activity gains — direction of travel positive though some experience metrics still lag.

Case 4

Peer challenge focus: Peer challenge urged stronger out-of-hours assurance, waiting list grip and a more strategic Voluntary, Community, Faith, and Social Enterprise sector (VCFSE) approach.

What CQC later found: CQC confirmed strong reablement metrics (4.86per cent supported with reablement; 82.81per cent at 91 days) but rated Safeguarding Inadequate and noted concerns with out-of-hours and inconsistent VCFSE engagement; clear operational progress on waits but governance gaps limited the rating.

Case 5

Peer challenge focus: Peer challenge encouraged Equality Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) leadership, operational coproduction and clarity in system interfaces.

What CQC later found: CQC rated Good (score 78) with ‘Partnerships & Communities’ at 4; EDI programme rolled out across the Council and with providers; waiting list pressures managed with visible plans.

Case 6

Peer challenge focus: Peer challenge highlighted large waiting lists, front-door handoffs and safeguarding delays; urged an Adult MASH/hub model.

What CQC later found: CQC recorded significant reductions in assessment (-47per cent) and review (-39per cent) backlogs; a safeguarding hub introduced with waits reducing, though the safeguarding quality statement remained at Requires Improvement (RI) (2).

Case 7

Peer challenge focus: Peer challenge flagged oversight of delegated functions (Occupational Therapy (OT)/Mental Health (MH)), financial assessment delays, waits and market disconnects.

What CQC later found: CQC judged Requires Improvement across all quality statements; improvement work was underway, but impacts were not yet embedded.

Case 8

Peer challenge focus: Peer challenge recommended a formal coproduction strategy, clearer waiting-list narrative, and strengthened commissioning QA capacity.

What CQC later found: CQC found strong reablement outcomes (90.32per cent at 91 days) and a broad prevention offer, but QS ‘Assessing needs’ and ‘Care provision/integration’ scored 2 owing to access/market capacity issues and QA capacity constraints.

Case 9

Peer challenge focus: Peer challenge prioritised throughput and carers; suggested strengthening prevention and accessibility.

What CQC later found: CQC rated Good overall; assessment waits reduced markedly in 2024 with some continued delays in OT/adaptations; carers’ improvements were in train.

Case 10

Peer challenge focus: Peer challenge emphasised prevention with the VCFSE, market diversification and data-to-strategy maturity.

What CQC later found :CQC rated Requires Improvement overall; signs of progress (e.g., screening backlogs reduced, extra care growth, innovations like ‘Nightrider’), but strategic prevention/VCFSE partnerships and market alternatives still developing.

The following table provides a comparative overview of the key findings from the 17 LGA ‘Preparation for Assurance’ peer challenges and the subsequent CQC Local Authority Assessments. It is designed to provide a clear, at-a-glance summary of the impact of the peer challenges, highlighting the areas where improvements were made and the judgement of the CQC on the council’s performance. The councils have been anonymised to protect their identities. 

Where CQC continued to rate quality statements as ‘Requires improvement’, the peer challenge had almost always identified the correct areas of concern. However, in many cases the changes initiated after the peer team visit had not yet matured into sustained, measurable impact by the time of assessment. This is less a question of poor diagnosis and more a reflection of the scale of operational pressures facing councils, the time required to embed system change, and the evidential standards expected by CQC.

The most common reasons can be grouped into five themes:

1. Operational backlogs persisting despite recovery plans.
2. Safeguarding oversight and out-of-hours assurance.
3. Commissioning and market capacity.
4. Early-stage coproduction and equity programmes.
5. Data capability focused on reporting rather than outcomes.

Many councils had developed credible backlog reduction programmes following a peer challenge, but CQC assessments often found that waiting lists for Care Act assessments, annual reviews, occupational therapy, DoLS applications or equipment/adaptations were still significant. In some places, maximum waits had reduced but median waits and overall throughput were not yet at acceptable levels. The effect was that, although direction of travel was positive, people’s day-to-day experience continued to be affected.

In a number of authorities, peer teams flagged the need for stronger safeguarding triage, better feedback loops to referrers, and more consistent out-of-hours provision. CQC evidence showed that while structures had been put in place, weaknesses remained in practice. For example, concerns were sometimes closed at the triage stage without sufficient oversight, or people experienced risks when incidents occurred outside core hours. These shortcomings limited assurance and undermined otherwise strong progress.

Peer challenges frequently recommended strengthening quality assurance frameworks, diversifying provision, and ensuring sufficient market capacity for people with complex needs. CQC assessments often acknowledged progress — such as the rollout of PAMMS or stronger provider engagement forums — but also noted persistent gaps in areas such as specialist housing, supported living, and culturally competent personal assistants. In effect, market reforms were underway but not yet producing consistent improvements in choice, availability or outcomes.

Peers consistently highlighted the importance of embedding coproduction with people and carers and addressing inequalities in access and outcomes. CQC reports often noted the creation of boards, forums or strategies, but found that the impact on peoples lived experience was not yet clear or consistent. For example, carers’ strategies had been refreshed but respite provision remained patchy, or equity frameworks were in place, but information was still not accessible to seldom-heard communities.

Councils had often strengthened their performance management systems, producing live dashboards and improved oversight. However, CQC inspectors sometimes judged that data was still being used primarily for monitoring activity rather than for driving and evidencing improved outcomes. This gap meant that while councils could describe what was happening, they could not always demonstrate tangible impact on people’s experience.

In nearly every case, the peer challenge acted as an effective catalyst, highlighting the right risks and prompting councils to start corrective programmes. Where CQC did not yet see improvement, the underlying reason was almost always that the work was in progress but not fully embedded or evidenced. This suggests that peer challenges have been directionally valuable, but that the LGA may wish to help councils place greater emphasis on pace, impact measurement and evidencing outcomes to ensure that improvements are visible at the point of assessment.

At the time of writing, 31 councils have undertaken a Preparation for Assurance Peer Challenge but are still awaiting the publication of their CQC Local Authority Assessment report. While the formal regulatory feedback has not yet been issued for these councils, the peer challenge reports themselves provide a clear picture of strengths and risks.

Alignment with the 17 councils already assessed

The findings for these 31 councils are consistent with the themes identified across the 17 councils where both peer challenge and CQC reports are available. In particular, the same key areas for improvement repeatedly emerge:

1. Access and timeliness – large waiting lists for Care Act assessments, annual reviews, DoLS, and occupational therapy/adaptations.
2. Safeguarding and out-of-hours – risks in triage processes, feedback loops to referrers, and limited assurance out of hours.
3. Reablement and prevention – the need to extend ‘home first’ pathways, strengthen OT capacity, and increase the reach of reablement services.
4. Market shaping and quality assurance (QA) – limited diversity of provision in some areas (specialist housing, supported living, culturally competent care), QA capacity stretched, and reliance on traditional models of care.
5. Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) – early-stage approaches to addressing inequalities, with gaps in accessible information, translation, and engagement of seldom-heard groups.
6. Coproduction and the voice of people and carers – governance boards and strategies emerging, but the evidence of consistent impact on frontline experience is not yet strong.
7. Carers’ support – refreshed strategies often in place but with ongoing concerns about timely respite, short-notice breaks, and equitable access to support.
8. Data and performance oversight – dashboards and reporting improving, but evidence often activity-based rather than outcomes-focused.

For these 31 councils, the peer challenge report should not be seen simply as a one-off diagnostic but as a live improvement tool. The analysis of the 17 councils already assessed shows a clear pattern: where peer challenge findings were quickly translated into time-bound delivery plans with clear performance trajectories, CQC subsequently found stronger evidence of improvement. Where findings were acknowledged but not fully embedded, CQC noted progress “in flight” but continued to rate quality statements as ‘Requires improvement’

To maximise the value of the peer challenge, councils awaiting assessment should:

1. Treat peer challenge team findings as assessment priorities – The issues highlighted by peers are the same issues CQC has subsequently judged most heavily (access/waits, safeguarding, equity, market sufficiency). Councils should use peer team recommendations as a roadmap for CQC assessment readiness.
2. Translate recommendations into clear trajectories – Develop 90-day and 180-day milestones for each major risk area. For example, publish monthly trajectories for assessment/review waits, OT/Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) clearance, and safeguarding timeliness.
3. Evidence impact, not just activity – CQC places weight on whether improvements are demonstrable in people’s outcomes (e.g., reduced waits, timely safeguarding resolutions, more people supported at home after discharge). Councils should move beyond activity reporting to show impact on lived experience.
4. Close governance gaps quickly – Safeguarding and out-of-hours risks have been the most damaging for councils in published CQC reports. Councils should ensure there is a single safeguarding triage pathway, visible oversight of partner-led enquiries, and robust out-of-hours arrangements.
5. Strengthen carers’ offer and equity of access – Ensure refreshed carers’ strategies translate into timely respite and support that carers can see and feel. Address barriers to access by improving the availability of information in multiple formats and languages, and by testing information with seldom-heard groups.
6. Sharpen commissioning QA capacity – Ensure QA teams have sufficient resource to conduct proactive quality visits, not just reactive interventions. Diversify provision (e.g., Shared Lives, micro-providers, supported living) to avoid overreliance on bed-based care.
7. Use peer feedback in corporate reporting – Incorporate peer challenge team findings into Scrutiny, Cabinet and Health & Wellbeing Board agendas. Demonstrate to elected members and partners that the council is not just acknowledging peer team feedback but actively delivering against it.

Additional guidance and helpful practice

• Publish a “single waiting list story”: CQC has criticised councils for fragmented or hidden waiting lists. Councils should prepare a single narrative that covers all waiting points (assessments, reviews, OT, DoLS, Continuing Health Care transitions), backed by data and trajectories.
• Evidence prevention and reablement outcomes: Track not only activity but also outcomes, such as the percentage of people remaining at home 91 days after discharge, or those who need no ongoing care after reablement.
• Embed lived-experience feedback loops: Collect feedback directly from people and carers about safeguarding outcomes, access to carers’ breaks, and ease of using information and advice. Show how this feedback is being used to improve services.
• Document equity actions: Evidence not just awareness but practical impact (e.g., accessible information available in Easy Read and multiple languages; digital inclusion support; targeted work with under-represented groups).

For the 31 councils awaiting their CQC assessment, the message is clear: the peer challenges have already identified the same priority risks that CQC is focusing on nationally. Councils that act decisively on their peer challenge findings — producing clear delivery trajectories, closing governance gaps, evidencing outcomes, and embedding lived-experience feedback — will be best placed to demonstrate improvement when CQC arrives.

Marcus Coulson

Senior Adviser 

Local Government Association

Web: Adult social care peer challenges | Local Government Association

Tel: 07766 252 853

Email: [email protected]