Beyond Go-Live: Is Your Digital Care Record Improving Care—or Just Recording It?

Adult social care has passed an important digital milestone.

As of March 2026, an estimated 83.7% of CQC-registered adult social care provider locations in England had a digital social care record.

An estimated 92% of people receiving care from registered providers were covered by one.

A further 8.5% of provider locations reported being in the process of implementing a system.

These figures represent significant progress.

Only a few years ago, large parts of the sector still depended on paper care plans, handwritten daily notes, physical files and information that could only be accessed from one office or service location.

Providers have invested money, time and leadership capacity.

Managers have migrated records.

Employees have learned new systems.

People receiving care and their families have adjusted to new ways of recording and sharing information.

Digital social care records are no longer an emerging idea.

They are becoming the normal operating foundation of regulated care.

But reaching go-live does not prove that a service has become digitally mature.

It proves that software has been introduced.

The next—and much more important—question is:

Is the digital care record improving care, or has the provider simply replaced paper recording with digital recording?

A digital system can make good practice clearer, faster and easier to manage.

It can also reproduce existing weaknesses on a screen.

An outdated paper care plan can become an outdated digital care plan.

Duplicated forms can become duplicated fields.

Generic language can become generic dropdown selections.

Poor-quality recording can be entered more quickly without becoming more useful.

And an alert can exist without anyone being clearly responsible for responding to it.

The sector has largely answered the question of adoption.

It must now answer the question of value.

---

Adoption Is Not the Same as Digital Maturity

The government’s wider definition of a fully digitised care provider goes beyond having any electronic care-record system.

It describes a CQC-registered provider using an assured digital social care record and meeting the “standards met” level of the Data Security and Protection Toolkit.

That distinction matters.

A provider may have implemented software while still experiencing weaknesses in:

• data quality;
• staff confidence;
• connectivity;
• device availability;
• information security;
• workflow design;
• management oversight;
• and practical use at the point of care.

The national What Good Looks Like framework describes digital maturity through seven connected measures:

1. Well led
2. Smart foundations
3. Safe practice
4. A supported workforce
5. Empowered people
6. Improved care
7. Healthy populations

It does not define success as purchasing a system or removing paper.

It places leadership, infrastructure, safety, skills, personal choice, outcomes and intelligent use of data around the technology.

This provides a more useful test for providers.

Digital maturity should be visible when:

• employees have the right information when they need it;
• care plans reflect the person rather than the software template;
• changes in need are identified earlier;
• managers can see developing risk;
• information supports consistent decisions;
• people can understand and contribute to their records;
• and technology releases more time for meaningful care.

If none of these conditions has improved, the organisation may be digital without having transformed.

---

What Has Go-Live Actually Achieved?

Providers should begin by separating implementation activity from operational benefit.

Implementation activity includes:

• purchasing the platform;
• migrating care plans;
• creating user accounts;
• issuing mobile devices;
• completing initial training;
• setting permissions;
• activating alerts;
• and confirming the system is live.

These are necessary steps.

But they describe what the organisation installed.

Operational benefit includes:

• more accurate care information;
• quicker updates after a change in need;
• improved continuity between employees;
• fewer missed actions;
• earlier escalation of concerns;
• stronger oversight;
• reduced duplication;
• improved family communication;
• more efficient reviews;
• and better outcomes for people.

These describe what the system changed.

The difference is important because digital projects can be declared complete too early.

Once paper records have been transferred and staff are logging in, attention often moves elsewhere.

Managers then inherit the long-term task of making the system work within daily care.

Over time, workarounds develop.

Some sections are completed fully.

Others are ignored because they appear repetitive.

Employees create free-text notes because the structured fields do not reflect the person.

Paper lists continue alongside the digital platform “just in case.”

Important information may then exist in several places.

The provider has completed the implementation project, but the operational transformation remains unfinished.

Go-live should therefore be treated as the beginning of optimisation—not the end of the programme.

---

CQC’s Four Tests for a Good Digital Record

CQC identifies four guiding principles for digital record systems in adult social care:

1. Person-centred
2. Available
3. Secure
4. Well governed

These principles focus on the outcome for the person rather than the presence of the technology.

They provide a useful structure for every provider reviewing its current system.

---

1. Is the Record Genuinely Person-Centred?

A digital care record should reflect:

• the person’s needs;
• choices;
• preferences;
• interests;
• strengths;
• aspirations;
• communication;
• relationships;
• and desired outcomes.

People should be involved in planning their support and, where appropriate, able to access and contribute to the information recorded about them.

CQC also expects providers to demonstrate that the system supports individual communication requirements and the Accessible Information Standard.

This sounds straightforward.

In practice, software design can unintentionally pull care planning away from the person.

A system may encourage completion through:

• standardised templates;
• mandatory fields;
• dropdown menus;
• pre-written text;
• repeated questions;
• and risk-led categories.

These features can improve consistency.

They can also produce records that are technically complete but difficult to recognise as belonging to a particular person.

Compare:

“Requires assistance with personal care.”

with:

“Margaret prefers to wash at the sink and chooses her own clothes the night before. She becomes anxious if unfamiliar staff enter without introducing themselves. Offer a warm flannel first and give her time to begin independently.”

Both may sit under the same care-plan heading.

Only one gives the employee enough information to provide personal care in a way that protects identity, dignity and control.

The person-centred record test

Select five care plans at random and ask:

• Could a new employee understand who this person is?
• Is the person’s own voice visible?
• Are strengths and abilities described alongside risks?
• Does the record explain how the person communicates?
• Are preferences specific enough to guide practice?
• Are personal goals clear?
• Has the person contributed in a way that meets their communication needs?
• Would the person recognise the description of their own life?

A digital record should make personalisation easier to maintain.

It should not turn the individual into a sequence of mandatory fields.

---

2. Is the Right Information Available at the Right Time?

CQC’s second principle concerns availability.

The right people should be able to access essential information when they need it, without the system creating unnecessary barriers.

This includes employees having the equipment, connectivity, skills and permissions required to use the system effectively.

Availability is more than system uptime.

A record may be technically available but practically inaccessible because:

• the device is shared;
• the mobile signal is weak;
• staff do not have the correct permission;
• login procedures take too long;
• information is hidden within several screens;
• employees are expected to update records after the shift;
• or the system is unavailable in parts of a building.

In home care, the employee needs current information at the person’s home.

In residential care, important information should be available during nights, weekends and emergencies—not only when office staff are present.

For community-based services, the record must remain usable across multiple locations and varied connectivity conditions.

The national framework says providers should have reliable internet access, suitable devices, complete Wi-Fi coverage where appropriate and mobile connectivity capable of supporting digital care records safely.

Ask what employees do when access becomes difficult

This question often reveals the real digital workflow.

Do they:

• wait until returning to the office?
• write notes on paper?
• message a colleague?
• rely on memory?
• enter several visits at the end of the day?
• use a personal device?
• or abandon a section because the system is too slow?

Each workaround introduces risk.

Information may be delayed, lost, duplicated or entered without the context available at the time.

The system should support care where it happens.

Care should not have to reorganise itself around the limitations of the system.

---

3. Is the Information Secure Without Becoming Unusable?

People must be able to trust that sensitive information about their care, health, family, finances and personal life is being protected.

CQC expects access to be appropriately restricted, staff to understand safe information sharing and providers to have plans for data loss, cyber incidents and periods when the system cannot be accessed. It also expects compliance with the Data Security and Protection Toolkit or an equivalent standard.

Security should not be treated as the responsibility of the software supplier alone.

The provider remains responsible for how the system is used.

Important controls include:

• individual user accounts;
• suitable access permissions;
• multi-factor authentication where appropriate;
• prompt removal of leavers;
• secure devices;
• software updates;
• staff training;
• incident reporting;
• supplier assurance;
• backup arrangements;
• and tested continuity plans.

But security can also fail through poor usability.

Where access controls are too difficult, staff may:

• share passwords;
• leave accounts logged in;
• store information elsewhere;
• photograph screens;
• or create unofficial paper copies.

A secure system needs to be practical enough that employees can follow the correct process during a busy shift.

The goal is not to create a choice between safety and accessibility.

It is to design both into the operating model.

---

4. Does the System Strengthen Governance?

CQC’s fourth principle requires the system to help providers assess, monitor and minimise risks and improve the quality of care.

Information should be accurate, complete and current.

Where digital and paper systems operate together, they should align rather than contain competing versions of the truth.

This is where the difference between a digital record and digital intelligence becomes most visible.

A record stores information.

A well-governed system helps leaders understand it.

Managers should be able to identify:

• overdue care-plan reviews;
• incomplete records;
• repeated missed tasks;
• changing risk levels;
• patterns in incidents;
• deteriorating outcomes;
• medicines concerns;
• inconsistent staff practice;
• and differences between services or shifts.

CQC says good digital systems can support real-time recording, access from different locations, more effective staff working and stronger quality monitoring through the comparison and sharing of care data.

But a dashboard is only useful when:

• the data beneath it is reliable;
• the measure is understood;
• responsibility is clear;
• and the information leads to action.

A red alert that remains visible for several weeks does not prove good governance.

It proves that the system identified something.

The provider must still respond.

---

A Digital System Can Make Poor Data More Visible—But Not More Accurate

Digital systems can create an impression of precision.

Information appears in structured fields.

Dates are automatically recorded.

Percentages can be calculated.

Reports can be produced instantly.

But the quality of the output still depends on the quality of the information entered.

A dashboard built from inaccurate records becomes an attractive presentation of unreliable data.

Common data-quality weaknesses include:

• copying previous notes;
• selecting the nearest available option rather than the accurate one;
• recording activity without outcome;
• inconsistent terminology;
• duplicate profiles;
• outdated risk information;
• contradictory care plans;
• incomplete time records;
• and staff entering information long after the event.

Providers should therefore monitor more than completion.

A field can be complete and still be wrong.

Review for quality, not only presence

A care-record audit should consider:

• accuracy;
• relevance;
• timeliness;
• personalisation;
• internal consistency;
• clarity;
• and whether staff practice reflects the record.

For example, a nutrition plan may be fully completed.

But if the person’s swallowing guidance has changed and the digital record was not updated promptly, the completeness score offers false reassurance.

Digital systems make rapid updating possible.

Providers must create the responsibilities and processes that make rapid updating happen.

---

From Daily Notes to Useful Intelligence

Daily records contain some of the richest information held by a care provider.

They may show:

• changes in appetite;
• disrupted sleep;
• altered mood;
• pain;
• confusion;
• reduced mobility;
• increased continence support;
• refusal of medication;
• withdrawal from activities;
• repeated family concerns;
• and subtle changes in behaviour.

Individually, these observations may appear minor.

Across several days or shifts, they may indicate deterioration.

The potential of digital recording lies partly in making those patterns easier to see.

But this requires more than storing notes chronologically.

The provider needs to consider:

• which information should trigger an alert;
• who reviews the alert;
• how urgently they must respond;
• what evidence shows the response occurred;
• and how the system avoids producing so many alerts that important ones are ignored.

Alert fatigue is a real operational risk

If staff receive warnings for:

• every incomplete field;
• every delayed task;
• every minor variation;
• and every low-level event,

they may begin treating alerts as background noise.

A system should distinguish between:

• information;
• a reminder;
• a developing concern;
• and an urgent safety risk.

Providers should work with their software partner to configure alerts around the service’s actual needs rather than accepting every default setting.

The most valuable alert is not the one that appears.

It is the one that reaches the right person early enough to change the outcome.

---

Is the Record Improving Continuity?

Continuity is one of the greatest potential benefits of a digital care record.

When information is accurate and accessible, employees should not depend entirely on verbal handovers or personal familiarity.

A worker supporting someone for the first time should be able to understand:

• how the person communicates;
• what matters to them;
• current risks;
• recent changes;
• preferred routines;
• clinical guidance;
• and actions requiring follow-up.

This does not mean that a record can replace a proper handover or relationship.

It means the quality of care should not collapse when one familiar employee is absent.

A provider should test:

• whether agency staff receive appropriate access;
• whether new starters can find essential information;
• whether night staff see updates made during the day;
• whether changes are visible immediately;
• and whether home-care workers can access information before and during a visit.

The measure of continuity is not whether everybody can log in.

It is whether people receive consistent support from everybody who does.

---

Does the System Release Time—or Relocate Administration?

Digital records are frequently presented as a way to reduce administrative workload.

That benefit is possible.

It is not automatic.

A system may save time by:

• avoiding repeated handwriting;
• populating standard information;
• enabling mobile recording;
• simplifying reviews;
• generating reports;
• and reducing manual checking.

It may also create more work through:

• repeated fields;
• duplicate systems;
• excessive alerts;
• complicated navigation;
• additional passwords;
• poor integration;
• and management reports requiring extensive manual correction.

The government’s digital framework states that technology should free time for meaningful human interaction and support stronger connections between people, families and care networks. It also expects providers to use data for continuous improvement rather than simply accumulate it.

Measure administrative value properly

Providers should examine:

• time spent completing records;
• time spent reviewing care plans;
• duplicated entry;
• time managers spend checking missing information;
• correction of inaccurate records;
• report preparation;
• and time released for supervision, quality improvement and direct support.

Do not assume that digital equals efficient.

Ask employees which parts of the system save time and which parts create avoidable work.

The people using the platform every day will usually identify inefficiencies long before a board report does.

---

Digital Confidence Is Part of Care Quality

The strongest software cannot compensate for a workforce that feels uncertain using it.

The national technology survey found that cost remained the most frequently reported barrier to further technology adoption.

But 52% of respondents also identified staff training costs and turnover, while 39% identified a lack of staff digital skills and 34% reported staff reluctance to use technology.

The survey was voluntary and should not be treated as representative of the complete sector, but it illustrates why implementation cannot be separated from workforce development.

Digital training should not consist only of demonstrating which buttons to press.

Employees need to understand:

• why the information matters;
• how records support safer care;
• what should be recorded;
• what should not be copied forward;
• how to escalate a concern;
• how to protect confidentiality;
• and what to do when the system fails.

The national framework recommends including digital skills within induction and appraisal, supporting peer learning and considering digital champions who can build confidence within teams.

Digital champions need a defined purpose

A digital champion should not simply become the person everyone calls when they forget a password.

They can help:

• identify poor workflows;
• support colleagues;
• test new features;
• gather feedback;
• recognise recurring training needs;
• and connect frontline experience with managers and suppliers.

They need time, support and a clear route for escalating issues.

Otherwise, responsibility for system optimisation becomes an unofficial addition to an already busy care role.

---

People Should Understand and Influence Their Digital Record

A care record exists primarily because of the person receiving care.

Yet the person can easily become the least involved party in its design and use.

Providers should explain:

• what information is being recorded;
• why it is needed;
• who can access it;
• how it may be shared;
• what rights the person has;
• how they can correct inaccurate information;
• and how they or an authorised representative can contribute.

The national framework expects providers to co-produce and personalise care plans, offer people the option of accessing and jointly managing their digital records and enable appropriate secure access for family members, friends and carers.

This does not mean every family member should have unrestricted access.

Access must reflect:

• the person’s wishes;
• consent;
• capacity;
• legal authority;
• confidentiality;
• and the sensitivity of the information.

But where appropriate, family access can improve:

• transparency;
• communication;
• continuity;
• and involvement in care.

It can also create new expectations.

Providers need clear processes for:

• what information becomes visible;
• when records are updated;
• how concerns are raised;
• and who responds.

Introducing family access without establishing those responsibilities can increase confusion rather than reduce it.

---

Digital Care Planning Must Remain a Human Process

A care plan is not person-centred because it was completed digitally.

It becomes person-centred through:

• conversation;
• observation;
• listening;
• professional judgement;
• co-production;
• review;
• and the relationship between the person and those supporting them.

Technology should help preserve and communicate that understanding.

It should not replace the process through which it was developed.

Care-plan reviews should therefore involve more than confirming that fields remain current.

They should ask:

• Has the person’s life changed?
• Are their goals still relevant?
• What has worked well?
• What has become more difficult?
• Have risks changed?
• Are restrictions still necessary?
• Is the person achieving the outcomes they wanted?
• What are staff and family members noticing?
• Does the plan still reflect the person’s own voice?

The digital platform should make these questions easier to answer over time.

A review that simply duplicates the previous plan and changes the date creates activity without learning.

---

The Dashboard Should Help Managers Decide What to Do Next

Digital providers increasingly offer dashboards showing:

• compliance;
• incomplete records;
• incidents;
• care-plan reviews;
• tasks;
• medicines;
• and outcomes.

These can significantly improve management visibility.

But providers should distinguish between three types of information.

Activity information

What happened?

Examples:

• 120 records completed;
• 18 care plans reviewed;
• five incidents recorded.

Performance information

How well was it done?

Examples:

• 94% of records completed on time;
• two plans overdue;
• incident reporting increased.

Improvement information

What changed for people?

Examples:

• earlier escalation reduced hospital admissions;
• hydration concerns were identified sooner;
• falls reduced;
• missed medication decreased;
• people experienced greater consistency.

Many dashboards are strong on activity and weaker on outcomes.

That is not necessarily a software failure.

The provider may not yet have defined which outcomes it wants to measure.

Before requesting another report, leaders should ask:

Which decision are we trying to make?

A useful dashboard helps the organisation decide where to:

• investigate;
• support;
• challenge;
• invest;
• or improve.

---

What Should Boards and Nominated Individuals Be Reviewing?

Digital care records should not sit solely with operational managers or the IT supplier.

Boards, owners and nominated individuals need sufficient visibility to understand whether the system is supporting quality and safety.

They should review:

• system adoption and active usage;
• overdue or incomplete records;
• care-plan quality;
• staff confidence;
• data-quality concerns;
• alerts and response times;
• incidents linked to information failure;
• downtime;
• cyber and data incidents;
• access reviews;
• continuity arrangements;
• supplier performance;
• and evidence of outcomes.

They should also understand the provider’s ongoing dependence on the system.

Questions should include:

1. Which parts of care cannot operate safely without it?
2. Who owns the relationship with the supplier?
3. What happens during an outage?
4. Is the information accurate enough to support management decisions?
5. Which features are available but not being used?
6. Where does information remain duplicated?
7. What improvement has the system produced?
8. Are people and staff experiencing the claimed benefit?
9. What additional training or infrastructure is required?
10. Are ongoing costs justified by measurable value?

Digital governance is not technical governance alone.

It is care governance conducted through technology.

---

What Should Providers Expect from Digital Care Record Partners?

The shift beyond adoption creates a more demanding role for software providers and digital-support organisations.

Care providers should expect more than:

• a product demonstration;
• initial data migration;
• basic training;
• and a helpdesk number.

A credible digital partner should be able to explain:

• how its system supports person-centred care;
• how information quality is maintained;
• how alerts and escalation can be configured;
• which management insights are available;
• how mobile and offline working are supported;
• how family and representative access operates;
• how data is protected;
• how outages are managed;
• how records can be retrieved or transferred;
• and how the provider can measure benefit.

CQC does not recommend a particular digital-record supplier.

The provider must assure itself that the system enables it to meet people’s needs, deliver its regulated activity and comply with legal and regulatory requirements.

Implementation should continue after go-live

Useful ongoing support may include:

• workflow review;
• refresher training;
• data-quality audits;
• dashboard configuration;
• feature adoption;
• care-plan redesign;
• system integration;
• supplier performance reviews;
• and support for digital champions.

The best supplier relationship should become increasingly focused on care outcomes.

The conversation should move from:

How many users have logged in?

to:

What are managers now able to see and improve that they could not see before?

---

The Digital Value Scorecard

Providers need a simple way to judge whether their digital care record is creating value.

A scorecard could examine six areas.

1. People

• Are people involved in their care plans?
• Do records reflect preferences and goals?
• Can people access or contribute appropriately?
• Has communication improved?

2. Workforce

• Can staff find essential information quickly?
• Do they have suitable devices and connectivity?
• Are they confident using the system?
• Has duplicated administration reduced?

3. Quality

• Are records accurate and current?
• Are reviews completed properly?
• Are patterns easier to identify?
• Is action tracked more reliably?

4. Safety

• Are changes in risk escalated sooner?
• Have missed tasks or medicines errors reduced?
• Can staff access information during emergencies?
• Are access and security arrangements effective?

5. Leadership

• Can managers see variation and developing concern?
• Do dashboards support decisions?
• Are boards receiving meaningful evidence?
• Is supplier performance reviewed?

6. Outcomes

• Is care more personalised?
• Has continuity improved?
• Are people maintaining independence?
• Have avoidable incidents or admissions changed?
• Has more time been released for direct care?

The provider does not need a perfect score in every area.

It needs an honest baseline and evidence of progress.

---

A Practical 30-Day Post-Go-Live Review

Providers do not need to replace their current system to begin improving its value.

A focused optimisation review can start within one month.

Week 1: Listen to the people using it

Speak with:

• people receiving care;
• families where appropriate;
• frontline employees;
• night workers;
• agency staff;
• managers;
• quality teams;
• and system administrators.

Ask what works, what is difficult and where unofficial workarounds have developed.

Week 2: Follow five real care journeys

Select several people with different needs.

Trace:

• assessment;
• care planning;
• daily recording;
• risk changes;
• incidents;
• reviews;
• and outcomes.

Identify where information becomes delayed, duplicated, generic or disconnected.

Week 3: Review the management view

Examine:

• dashboards;
• alerts;
• overdue actions;
• audit trails;
• data-quality reports;
• and service variation.

Ask which information results in a management decision and which is collected without a clear purpose.

Week 4: Agree three improvements

These might include:

• simplifying a care-plan section;
• revising alert thresholds;
• improving mobile access;
• reassessing staff competence;
• introducing digital champions;
• removing duplicated paper recording;
• activating an unused dashboard;
• or working with the supplier to improve a workflow.

Define the outcome expected from each change.

The objective is not to use more features.

It is to make the system more useful.

---

Ten Questions Care Leaders Should Be Asking

1. Is our digital record improving the experience of people receiving care?
2. Can staff access current information wherever care is delivered?
3. Do records reflect the individual or the software template?
4. Are employees recording in real time or reconstructing information later?
5. Which alerts require action, and who owns the response?
6. Can managers identify changing risk and outcomes quickly?
7. Are we measuring data quality rather than completion alone?
8. Has the system reduced duplication and released time?
9. Are we using the reporting and improvement functions we are paying for?
10. What measurable care outcome has improved since go-live?

That final question should sit at the centre of every digital review.

---

What Does Digital Maturity Look Like?

Digital maturity does not mean every process is automated.

It does not mean the provider owns the most advanced platform.

And it does not mean paper is forbidden in every circumstance.

It means technology is being used with purpose.

A digitally mature provider can show that:

• people remain at the centre of their records;
• employees have reliable access to the information they need;
• data is accurate, current and secure;
• managers can identify risk and variation;
• the workforce is confident using the system;
• digital processes fit naturally into care;
• people and families understand how information is used;
• downtime has been planned for;
• and the organisation can demonstrate improved outcomes.

The national framework says providers should actively use digital social care records to inform service improvement and personalised care, share evidence of impact and use available data for quality monitoring, learning and improvement.

That is the standard the sector should now move towards.

---

Beyond Go-Live

The rapid growth of digital social care records is a genuine achievement.

Most registered provider locations now have a system.

The overwhelming majority of people receiving regulated care are covered by one.

The adoption challenge has not disappeared completely, particularly for smaller providers and services facing cost, skills or infrastructure barriers.

But the centre of the conversation has changed.

The sector no longer needs to ask only:

How do we get more providers onto digital records?

It must also ask:

What are those records now enabling providers to do better?

The answer should be visible in:

• more personalised care;
• current information;
• safer decisions;
• earlier escalation;
• clearer oversight;
• better continuity;
• stronger involvement;
• reduced administration;
• and outcomes that matter to people.

A provider should not be judged digitally mature because its employees stopped writing on paper.

It should be judged by whether technology strengthened the human work of care.

The record should help employees understand the person.

It should help managers understand the service.

It should help families and professionals communicate appropriately.

It should help leaders recognise risk.

And it should help the organisation learn what is working.

Go-live is an important milestone.

But it is not the destination.

The next phase of digital social care will not be defined by how many systems have been installed.

It will be defined by how intelligently, safely and purposefully they are used.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a digital social care record?

A digital social care record is a software system used to record a person’s care information electronically, replacing or reducing reliance on paper records.

How many adult social care providers use digital care records?

As of March 2026, an estimated 83.7% of CQC-registered adult social care provider locations in England had a digital social care record. An estimated 92% of people receiving regulated adult social care were covered by one.

Does having a digital care record mean a provider is fully digitised?

Not necessarily. The government defines a fully digitised registered provider as one using an assured digital social care record and meeting the “standards met” level of the Data Security and Protection Toolkit.

What does CQC expect from a digital care-record system?

CQC identifies four guiding principles: the system should be person-centred, available to the right people, secure and capable of supporting effective governance and improvement.

How can digital records improve care?

They can support real-time information, access across locations, continuity, more efficient working and stronger quality monitoring. The provider must still ensure the information is accurate, acted upon and connected to people’s outcomes.

Should people receiving care be able to access their digital records?

Providers should support people to understand, access and contribute to their records in a way that meets their needs and preferences. Appropriate access may also be offered to legally authorised representatives, family members or carers with suitable consent and controls.

How should a provider measure whether its digital system is working?

Measures should include record accuracy, timeliness, staff confidence, response to alerts, care-plan quality, administrative time, continuity, incidents, people’s experiences and outcomes—not system usage alone.

Does CQC recommend particular care-record software?

No. CQC does not endorse a specific supplier. Providers must assure themselves that the chosen system supports the needs of people, the delivery of regulated activities and compliance with relevant regulations.

---

Editorial sources

This feature has been developed using evidence available by 12 June 2026, preserving the integrity of its backdated publication position.

• Department of Health and Social Care, Adult Social Care Provider Statistics, England: Quarterly Update to May 2026, published 4 June 2026.
• Department of Health and Social Care, Findings from the 2025 Adult Social Care Provider Technology Survey, published 6 March 2026.
• Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England, Digital Working in Adult Social Care: What Good Looks Like.
• Care Quality Commission, Digital Record Systems: Achieving Good Outcomes for People Using Adult Social Care Services.
• Care Quality Commission, Principles for Providers to Support Good Outcomes for People.
• Care Quality Commission, The Benefits of a Good Digital Records System.
• Care Quality Commission, What Do Good Digital Social Care Records Look Like?