Partnerships and communities
Is the service working effectively and collaboratively with people who use the service and partners to support care provision and service development?
In brief
Partnerships and communities is key line of enquiry 5 under the Well-led key question in the Care Quality Commission (CQC) draft adult social care assessment framework (v9, 19 March 2026), currently published for consultation. It covers sharing good practice and learning, partnership working and collaboration, involvement and coproduction. CQC describes performance against it at four rating levels: Outstanding, Good, Requires improvement and Inadequate. Each statement and rating characteristic quoted here is reproduced verbatim from CQC's draft; plain-English summaries are HLTH's own.
- Key question
- Well-led
- Line of enquiry
- KLOE 5 of 6 under Well-led
- Rating levels
- Outstanding, Good, Requires improvement, Inadequate
- Source
- Adult social care assessment framework, v9 (19 March 2026)
- Status
- Draft, published by CQC for consultation
- Reference
- pp. 61–62 of the CQC draft
Scope and topic areas
What this line of enquiry covers
Scope of this key line of enquiry and topic areas include:
- Sharing good practice and learning
- Partnership working and collaboration
- Involvement and coproduction
Rating characteristics
How CQC describes each rating
The four characteristic sets for this KLOE, best to worst. Every point is CQC's wording, reproduced exactly.
Outstanding
In plain terms: Care is exceptional and consistently better than the Good standard.
- The service takes a proactive lead role in building on shared learning to improve inequalities and services across adult social care locally, regionally or nationally.
- It uses collaboration and joint initiatives to enhance how services are delivered, improve outcomes for people, and foster innovation.
- Collaboration is deeply embedded at every level.
- People who use services, staff and local stakeholders are meaningfully involved as equal partners in the design, delivery, and evaluation of services. Co-production is embedded in the service’s culture, with diverse voices actively shaping decisions. Engagement is inclusive and sustained.
- The service is embedded in the community it serves and is considered a valued partner by others in the community.
Good
In plain terms: The service meets the expected standard.
- Staff and leaders are open and transparent, and they work collaboratively with all relevant external stakeholders and agencies.
- Staff and leaders work in partnership with people and other organisations, so that services work as seamlessly as possible for people.
- The service has strong external relationships and all staff including leaders engage early with people, communities, and partners to share learning with each other, which results in continuous improvements to the service. They understand that they cannot solve everything on their own and reach out to others, using these networks to identify new or innovative ideas that can lead to better outcomes for people.
- The service maintains positive relationships with the local community and works well with community partners.
Requires improvement
In plain terms: The service is not yet Good and has areas that must improve.
- The service does not always work collaboratively and cooperatively with external partners and other services. It does not always share information and good practice effectively.
- The service does not consistently involve others or work in partnership with people and communities to share learning to improve the service and outcomes for people.
- The service talks to some community members, but this is not representative of the whole community, and people’s experience and knowledge are not valued and used consistently to improve services.
Inadequate
In plain terms: Performance is well below the expected standard; enforcement may follow.
- There is poor collaboration or co-operation with external partners and other services. There is little or no evidence of partnership working.
- The service does not share good practice or learning with others. There is little or no evidence of engagement with the wider system, and opportunities to contribute to collective improvement are routinely overlooked.
- People, staff, the public and community are not meaningfully involved in designing the service or how it is delivered. Engagement is minimal or absent, and involvement or collaboration are not invited.
- There is no clear approach to co-production. The service is developed and improved with minimal or no input from the people it supports.
Reading these against your own evidence is where most providers get stuck. We can walk it through with you.