TLScare records mapped to CQC's draft adult social care assessment framework
Here is exactly which parts of CQC's new draft framework TLScare's records help you evidence, and which they don't.
CQC does not certify software. Using TLScare does not make a provider compliant. Compliance depends on how you care for people and manage your service.
Mapped against CQC's draft adult social care assessment framework (consultation closed 12 June 2026; implementation expected late 2026). At 24 October 2026 CQC had not published a final framework.
Last verified against the app: 24 October 2026
1. Our position
TLScare keeps records that a provider can use as part of its evidence for CQC. TLScare is not CQC approved, certified or compliant. CQC does not certify software, and no supplier holds that status. Compliance is a property of the provider's care and management, which TLScare records can support but never establish. This mapping shows which draft key lines of enquiry (KLOEs) TLScare records are relevant to, how strongly, and where the product gives a provider nothing.
2. The framework we map to, and its status
On 24 March 2026 CQC consulted on four sector-specific assessment frameworks, including adult social care. The consultation closed on 12 June 2026.
The draft adult social care framework replaces the 34 quality statements with 24 KLOEs, adds rating characteristics for each of CQC's four ratings, and removes numerical scoring. The five key questions (Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive, Well-led) are unchanged.
KLOE split in the draft: Safe 7, Effective 4, Caring 3, Responsive 4, Well-led 6 = 24.
CQC has signalled implementation towards the end of 2026. At 24 October 2026 CQC had not published a final framework: its consultation page (last updated 15 June 2026) offers only the draft. This mapping is against that draft (version 9, linked from CQC's consultation page).
If CQC has published a final framework since the date above, check this mapping against CQC's own text before relying on it. The KLOE names below follow CQC's draft document, shortened.
3. Strength scale used
| Rating | Meaning |
|---|---|
Direct | A TLScare record is the kind of document an assessor would ask to see for part of this KLOE. |
Partial | The records cover some of the KLOE's scope; material parts remain with the provider or other tools. |
Indirect | Records could support the KLOE only if the provider uses a generic feature (for example a configurable form). The product has no purpose-built record. |
None | TLScare provides no evidence for this KLOE. |
No row is rated Direct unless the record exists in the app. A rating describes the record, not whether a provider using it would be rated well.
4. Mapping to the draft adult social care KLOEs
Summary count. Of 24 draft KLOEs: 1 Direct (staffing, partial scope), 7 Partial, 2 Indirect, 14 None.
Most of the draft framework is not evidenced by TLScare records. We say so plainly so you can count it yourself.
Safe
| KLOE (CQC wording, shortened) | Rating | What TLScare records | What it does not evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Safety culture — risks proactively managed, incidents investigated, lessons learned (duty of candour, closed cultures) | Indirect | Configurable forms can hold an incident write-up. | No incident workflow, no investigation or outcome tracking, no trend analysis, no duty-of-candour record. Material gap. |
| Managing risks during care and treatment — risks to each person monitored and managed | Partial | Risk assessments with rating, assessment date and next review date; care plans with urgency and interventions; visit status history. | No deterioration or observation tracking; no positive-risk-taking rationale; no restrictive-practice record; care plan has no review date. |
| Safe systems, pathways and transitions | None | — | No handover, transfer or hospital-discharge record. Files could be uploaded manually. |
| Safeguarding — rights, abuse, DoLS | None | Staff policy acknowledgement can show staff were issued a safeguarding policy. | No safeguarding concern or referral record, no outcome log. Material gap. |
| Safe environments and infection prevention and control | None | Qualification records could evidence IPC training dates if the provider configures that qualification. | No environment or IPC audit record. |
| Safe staffing — recruitment, DBS, skills, qualifications, supervision | Direct (partial scope) | Staff compliance documents with valid-from and valid-to dates and uploaded evidence; qualification records (name, grade, date); DBS number; right-to-work; job roles; rota; timesheets; time-off. | No native supervision, appraisal or competency sign-off record. No recruitment (references, interview) record. No alert for approaching expiry: an expiry date is held and shows in red once it has passed. |
| Safe medicines and treatments — administration and record keeping, consent/covert, controlled drugs, storage | Partial | eMAR: dosage by time of day, date given, status including missed and refused, refusal reason, configurable missed-medication reasons. | No consent, covert-administration or MCA decision record; no controlled-drug register, stock or storage record; no change history on entries; the carer who gave a dose is recorded on the visit, not on the eMAR chart entry. TLScare has not completed a clinical safety assessment of the eMAR (see the medicines and clinical safety note below). |
Effective
| KLOE (CQC wording, shortened) | Rating | What TLScare records | What it does not evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assessing needs — holistic assessment, reviewed with the person | Partial | Care plans: need, goal, interventions, urgency. | No review date or review history on the care plan; editing a care plan overwrites the previous version; no record of who was involved in the review. A gap that matters under this KLOE. |
| Evidence-based care and equitable outcomes | None | — | No outcomes measurement. |
| Supporting people to live healthier lives | None | — | No nutrition, hydration or health-monitoring records. |
| Consent to care and treatment | None | — | No consent or mental-capacity record. Material gap. |
Caring
| KLOE (CQC wording, shortened) | Rating | What TLScare records | What it does not evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kindness, compassion and dignity | None | — | Experience of care is evidenced by observation and people's feedback, not by software records. |
| Person-centred care | Partial | Care plan goals and interventions per client. | Content quality is the provider's. Nothing shows the person was involved in writing it. |
| Independence, choice and control | Indirect | Client access records show who has access to a client's information. | We make no claim that what a client-access user sees supports choice and control. |
Responsive
| KLOE (CQC wording, shortened) | Rating | What TLScare records | What it does not evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Care provision, integration and continuity | Partial | Rota, schedule, visit diary and timesheets show who delivered which visit. | No continuity-of-carer report. No partnership or integration records. |
| Listening to and responding to feedback | None | — | No complaints or feedback record. Material gap. |
| Timely and equitable access | Partial | Visit statuses (late check-in, missed) evidence visit timeliness. | Concerns timeliness of delivered visits, not access to the service or waiting times. |
| Equity in experiences | None | — | — |
Well-led
| KLOE (CQC wording, shortened) | Rating | What TLScare records | What it does not evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governance and management — accountability, quality assurance, records/digital records, DSPT and data protection, workforce planning | Partial | Role-based access (fixed roles that set which features each user can use); policies with acknowledgement; analytics view; digital care records. | No audit log: earlier values are not kept when a record is edited, and archiving or restoring a record is not logged. A few record types show who last updated them. No quality-audit or action-plan record. Access is set by role, not per person, and we have not independently tested access controls. The KLOE names the DSPT and data protection, so TLScare's own status matters to a buyer: DSPT and ICO registration are not yet completed. |
| Vision and strategy; workforce equity and culture; capable leaders; partnerships and communities; improvement, innovation and learning | None | — | These are about leadership, culture and relationships. Software records do not evidence them. |
5. If you are assessed under the current framework
The current single assessment framework (34 quality statements, six evidence categories) stays in force until CQC switches over. Relevant differences:
| Current framework | Draft framework | Effect on TLScare mapping |
|---|---|---|
| 34 quality statements | 24 KLOEs with rating characteristics | The same records support both; the mapping rows above translate directly. |
| Scoring of evidence categories | No numerical scoring; rating characteristics | Nothing in TLScare depended on scoring. |
| Safe: learning culture; safe systems and transitions; safeguarding; involving people in managing risk; safe environments; safe and effective staffing; infection prevention and control; medicines optimisation | Safety culture; managing risks; safe systems/pathways/transitions; safeguarding; safe environments and IPC (merged); safe staffing; safe medicines | Same records apply. IPC no longer stands alone. |
| Effective: assessing needs; evidence-based care; how teams work together; healthier lives; monitoring and improving outcomes; consent | Assessing needs; evidence-based care and outcomes; healthier lives; consent | "Staff, teams and services working together" has no separate KLOE in the draft; TLScare had no evidence there anyway. |
| Responsive includes "providing information" and "planning for the future" | Not standalone KLOEs | TLScare provides no evidence for either. |
| Well-led includes "freedom to speak up", "workforce equality", "environmental sustainability" | Workforce equity and culture folded together; environmental sustainability deliberately left out of the draft | No TLScare evidence in any. |
| Six evidence categories: people's experience, staff and leader feedback, observation, partner feedback, processes, outcomes | We did not find an evidence-category scheme in the draft document | TLScare records are almost entirely "processes" evidence, with limited "outcomes" evidence. |
6. Gap register
These are the places where a provider using TLScare would still need another tool or process. We list them so you can count them before you talk to us.
| # | Gap | Where it bites | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | No audit log (earlier values are not kept; a few record types show who last updated them) | Governance; records integrity; eMAR; data protection | High |
| G2 | No incident/accident record or workflow | Safety culture; duty of candour | High |
| G3 | No safeguarding record | Safeguarding | High |
| G4 | No consent / mental-capacity record | Consent; medicines | High |
| G5 | No complaints / feedback record | Listening and responding | Medium |
| G6 | Care plans have no review date or review history, and editing overwrites the previous version | Assessing needs | High |
| G7 | No supervision/appraisal/competency record | Safe staffing | Medium |
| G8 | eMAR: no controlled-drug, stock, PRN or covert-administration handling evident; no entry change history | Safe medicines | High |
| G9 | No quality-audit / action-plan record | Governance | Medium |
| G10 | TLScare itself: DSPT not complete, ICO registration not completed | Governance KLOE names DSPT and data protection | High |
| G11 | No alert for approaching expiry of staff compliance documents (dates are held; a passed date shows in red) | Safe staffing | Medium |
7. Medicines and clinical safety
The eMAR is a medicines record used by care staff. TLScare has not completed its assessment of whether the eMAR needs a clinical risk management file under the NHS DCB0129 standard. We make no claim about the clinical safety of the eMAR or about DCB0129. Until that assessment is done, the eMAR is rated Partial and should be read as a record only.
How this was checked
How this was checked: by reviewing the TLScare application. The dashboard was reviewed as deployed, and back-end behaviour was reviewed in the application's source code. We have not tested a live customer account, and this is not an independent audit. Last verified against the app: 24 October 2026.
CQC does not certify software. Using TLScare does not make a provider compliant. Compliance depends on how you care for people and manage your service.
Mapped against CQC's draft adult social care assessment framework (consultation closed 12 June 2026; implementation expected late 2026). At 24 October 2026 CQC had not published a final framework.
Last verified against the app: 24 October 2026
Found something that looks wrong? Email info@tlscare.com.
Copyright @2023 . All rights reserved.