Regulation The CQC must move towards a system
that actively prevents harm, rather than acts on it. This does not mean more inspections for the sake of it. It means: n Earlier intervention when warning signs emerge.
n More real-time oversight. n Faster responses to concerns. n Direct engagement with families who are afraid to speak up.
n Publicly recognising providers who demonstrate transparency and improvement.
Prevention should be the backbone of regulation, and the sector is ready for it. Providers tell us they would welcome clearer structures that reward openness rather than discourage it.
Why safety monitoring must be part of the conversation CCFTV has long advocated for choice- led safety monitoring in care homes – particularly for residents living with dementia who cannot always communicate when something is wrong. This is not about surveillance. It is about clarity, protection, and trust. Families who consent to safety monitoring
in private rooms want reassurance that their loved ones are safe – not watched, but safe. Care staff who understand the purpose of cameras quickly see how they can protect them from false allegations. Providers who adopt transparent monitoring often report better relationships with families, fewer disputes, and safer practice. What CCFTV wants the CQC to
understand is this: safety monitoring is no
The CQC’s approach has struggled to keep pace
longer an optional conversation. It is an essential part of modern safeguarding. But to work, it must be:
n Consent-based. n Led by the resident or their lasting power of attorney.
n Properly regulated. n Implemented in partnership with staff. n Clearly aligned with data protection law. n Embraced as a safeguarding tool – not a punishment.
The CQC should be leading on this guidance. At present, there is no unified national stance, leaving providers uncertain, families confused, and safety inconsistent. A joined-up regulatory view would change
that overnight.
A call for the CQC to establish a national framework for safety monitoring A consistent national framework would protect everyone – residents, families, staff, and providers. CCFTV believes the CQC could and should introduce: n Clear, accessible guidance on the use of monitoring and consent.
n Unambiguous language around lasting power of attorney.
n Agreed standards for privacy, data handling, and purpose.
n An expectation of full transparency between providers and families.
n Reassurance that providers using ethical, consent-led monitoring will not be penalised.
At present, we see too much uncertainty. Some providers are eager to adopt transparent solutions but hesitate, fearing regulatory repercussions. Others use cameras discreetly, without clear communication, which undermines trust. Families are left unsure what they can ask for or expect. A national regulatory framework would
create clarity, fairness, and consistency and would send a strong message that safety and transparency are fully compatible with dignity and rights.
The CQC must not penalise providers for being transparent One of the most concerning patterns CCFTV encounters is providers telling us that openness can come back to bite them.
January 2026
www.thecarehomeenvironment.com 37
Photographee.eu -
stock.adobe.com
Africa Studio -
stock.adobe.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
