How to run audits that actually change something
- Manu Thomas ACP | Former CQC Specialist Advisor | NICE Associate
- Jun 30
- 8 min read
Most audits in adult social care do not lead to change. The form is completed, the score is recorded, the finding sits in a folder, and the same issue appears in the next audit three months later. The reason is not that staff are negligent it is that the audit process has been designed around documentation rather than improvement. This post explains why, and sets out the framework that closes the loop.
Why the clinical audit cycle breaks down in social care
The clinical audit cycle is a systematic process intended to improve the quality of care by evaluating the effectiveness of services based on established guidelines and standards. However, in the realm of social care, several factors contribute to the breakdown of this cycle, which can hinder the delivery of optimal care.
One prominent issue is the lack of robust data collection and reporting systems. In social care settings, the focus may often lean toward direct service delivery rather than on the meticulous documentation required for effective audits. This can lead to gaps in data that are essential for evaluating care quality, making it difficult to identify trends or areas for improvement.
Another significant challenge is the variability in standards and practices across different organizations. Unlike clinical settings that often adhere to strict protocols and guidelines, social care encompasses a diverse range of services and practices. This variability can create discrepancies in how audits are conducted and the standards against which services are evaluated, resulting in inconsistent findings and recommendations.
Moreover, staff engagement and training play a crucial role in the success of the audit cycle. In social care, there may be a lack of dedicated resources and training opportunities for personnel to understand the auditing process and its importance. When staff members are not adequately prepared or motivated to participate in audits, the process can lose its effectiveness, leading to incomplete or inaccurate assessments.
Additionally, the integration of feedback into practice can be fraught with challenges. Even when audits identify areas needing improvement, there can be barriers to implementing changes. Resistance to change, limited resources, and competing priorities can prevent organizations from acting on audit findings, thereby stalling the cycle of continuous improvement.
Lastly, the cultural context of social care often emphasizes relationship-building and individualized care, which can conflict with the standardized approach of clinical audits. While personalized care is essential, it may sometimes hinder the systematic evaluation that audits require, leading to tensions between the need for quality assurance and the ethos of tailoring care to individual needs.
In summary, the breakdown of the clinical audit cycle in social care can be attributed to inadequate data systems, variability in practices, insufficient staff engagement, challenges in implementing feedback, and the inherent complexities of delivering personalized care. Addressing these issues requires a concerted effort to enhance data collection, standardize practices, engage staff, and foster a culture that values quality improvement as an integral part of social care.
What "completing the loop" actually means
Each of these steps must be documented. Not because CQC requires paperwork, but because without a record, you cannot evidence that the loop closed and without evidencing it, it does not exist as far as an inspector is concerned.
The finding is acknowledged. Someone with authority looks at what the audit found and says in a team meeting, on a communications board, or in writing "this is what we found."
A specific action is assigned. Not "we will improve medication recording." Something concrete: "By [date], the medication administration record template will be updated to include a witness signature field, and [named person] is responsible."
Staff can see that the action happened. The change appears in practice. The new template is on the trolley. The new process is demonstrated in the next team briefing. Something is different.
The re-audit confirms the change held. When the same domain is audited in the next cycle, the finding is reviewed against the previous action. If the finding has closed, that is documented as evidence of learning. If it has not closed, the action is escalated.
Each of these steps must be documented. Not because CQC requires paperwork, but because without a record, you cannot evidence that the loop closed and without evidencing it, it does not exist as far as an inspector is concerned.
The most common reason audits don't change practice
The primary reason audits often fail to lead to meaningful changes in practice is linked to a critical oversight in the audit process: the previous audit did not result in any observable improvements or actions. When staff members invest their time and effort into completing an audit and subsequently see no tangible feedback, action taken, or recognition of their work, it sends a clear message: the audit has merely been a compliance exercise, devoid of real significance.
As a result, the behavior of the staff adapts accordingly. In the subsequent audit cycle, individuals may approach the audit process with the intention of minimizing their own effort and mitigating any potential risks. This leads to a situation where findings are intentionally softened, and scores are inflated without any genuine improvements being made in practice. Such patterns do not go unnoticed by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspectors, who are trained to identify these discrepancies.
CQC inspectors often ask pertinent questions such as, "What happens when an audit identifies a problem?" A confident, specific response such as, "We convened a team meeting to discuss the findings, we revised the medication chart, and we followed up with a re-evaluation last month" is indicative of an Outstanding performance rating. In contrast, vague responses that reference “improvement actions” without clarity do not inspire confidence and detract from the credibility of the audit process.
To address these issues and foster genuine improvement, the solution lies not in simply creating a more sophisticated audit form but in establishing a visible and closed feedback loop. This means ensuring that staff can point to concrete actions and changes resulting from audit findings, thus reinforcing the value of the auditing process and encouraging ongoing engagement and commitment to quality improvement.
Is your service prepared for CQC's 2026 inspection approach? The CQC Readiness Assessment takes 10 minutes and gives you a personalised report on where your governance evidence is strong and where it needs work including your audit and learning loop. Start your free CQC Readiness Assessment
How to structure an audit calendar that produces evidence
A workable audit calendar for a medium-sized care home covers five domains on a rolling 12-month cycle: medication management, care planning, infection prevention and control, mental capacity and DoLS, and environmental safety. Each domain is audited at least quarterly; high-risk areas such as medication are audited monthly.
The calendar should be built so that:
Each audit has a named lead who owns the findings, not just the completion
Findings from the previous cycle are reviewed at the start of each new audit in that domain
Actions from previous audits are rated as "closed," "in progress," or "not started" before the new audit begins
The audit summary goes to a governance meeting within two weeks of completion, not into a folder
That governance meeting is where the loop closes. Without a defined point at which someone with authority reviews the finding and authorises a response, findings drift. The meeting does not need to be long; 20 minutes with the right people, focussed on findings and actions rather than scores, produces more improvement than an hour of general discussion.
What to do when the same finding keeps appearing
If the same finding appears across two or more consecutive audit cycles, the audit system is telling you that the action taken was either wrong, was not embedded, or was never actually implemented.
The correct response is not to escalate the finding, it is to escalate the investigation. Three questions to work through:
Was the action specific enough? Vague actions ("improve recording") cannot be verified. If you cannot point to a physical change a new form, a new process, a new training record the action was not specific enough.
Did the action reach the right people? Many actions are agreed at management level and never communicated to the staff who deliver care. Check whether the person who performs the task was told what changed and why.
Has the action been checked? An action signed off as "complete" should be spot-checked within four weeks. Spot checks are not punitive; they are the mechanism by which change is confirmed rather than assumed.
A repeated finding that is actively managed acknowledged, investigated, re-actioned, and confirmed is manageable under inspection. A repeated finding that is simply re recorded across cycles with no escalation is one of the most reliable indicators of a governance failure CQC inspectors will pursue.
How to evidence the audit cycle under CQC inspection
Under the draft 2026 adult social care assessment framework, KLOE 16 ("Learning, improvement and innovation") asks whether providers can demonstrate that learning from experience is embedded in practice and leads to demonstrable change. Audits are the primary vehicle for this evidence.
The evidence CQC will look for includes:
An audit schedule showing planned, systematic coverage of quality domains
Completed audit records showing findings, not just scores
Action plans with named owners, specific actions, and deadlines
Governance meeting minutes confirming actions were reviewed and closed
Re-audit records confirming the original finding was addressed
Staff who can describe unprompted what changed as a result of a recent audit
The last point is the one most providers underestimate. An inspector will often speak to care staff before reviewing documentation. If a staff member can say "we changed the way we do the MAR chart signing because the last audit found gaps, and we had a team meeting about it," that is live evidence of a functioning audit loop. It outweighs a well-formatted action plan every time.
FAQ
Q: How often should a care home run audits? A: High-risk domains such as medication management should be audited monthly. Other domains care planning, infection prevention, mental capacity, environment should be audited at minimum quarterly, with findings reviewed at each governance meeting. The frequency matters less than the consistency of the response.
Q: What is the difference between an audit and an inspection? A: An audit is an internal quality process run by the provider to measure practice against a standard. An inspection is an external regulatory assessment carried out by CQC. Audits are the primary mechanism through which a provider generates the evidence an inspector will later examine. A provider that audits well is a provider that is inspection-ready as a matter of routine.
Q: Can I use the same audit tool across different service types? A: A generic audit tool will identify obvious gaps but will miss domain-specific risks. A dementia service and a physical disability service may share common audit domains but will have different risk profiles in medication management, mental capacity recording, and environmental assessment. Tailored tools produce more useful findings.
Q: What should an audit action plan include? A: Each action should specify: what will change, who is responsible, by what date, how the change will be verified, and what the re audit outcome was. An action plan that records only "improvement required" against a finding is not an action plan, it is a finding re-labelled.
Q: What happens if an audit finds something serious? A: If an audit finding relates to immediate risk, a safeguarding concern, a medication error pattern, or an environmental danger, it should not wait for the next governance meeting. The finding triggers your incident and risk management process immediately. Audits and incident reporting are complementary systems; one identifies patterns, the other responds to events.
Start with where you actually are
The most common mistake registered managers make with audits is spending time refining the audit form before fixing the response process. A better form that produces findings nobody acts on is not an improvement.
Start with the last three audits your service ran. For each one: what was the top finding? What action was taken? Can you point to evidence that the action changed practice? If you cannot answer all three questions for each audit, the loop is broken and the form is not the problem.
If you want to understand how your current governance approach maps against CQC's 2026 inspection criteria including the audit and learning loop, the free CQC Readiness Assessment will give you a clear picture in under 10 minutes.
Sources
CQC Draft Adult Social Care Assessment Framework (March 2026) — Key Lines of Enquiry, including KLOE 16: Learning, improvement and innovation. Available at: cqc.org.uk
Skills for Care — The state of the adult social care sector and workforce in England (2024). Available at: skillsforcare.org.uk
NHS England — Principles of clinical audit. Available at: england.nhs.uk Care Quality Commission — How we inspect adult social care services. Available at: cqc.org.uk
Comments