Exploring the Perspectives of Health and Social Care Workers on the Influence of CQC-Regulated Services on Providers in the Health and Social Care Sector

• Published in: Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports Vol. 19; no. 6; pp. 94 - 111
• Main Authors: Chijioke Paul, Igwe, Ejikeme Peter, Igwe, Fimbaya Chua, Ephraim
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 13.06.2025
• Subjects: Humanities and Social Sciences
• ISSN: 2582-3248; 2582-3248
• DOI: 10.9734/ajarr/2025/v19i61045

Within the United Kingdom, particularly England, this work is an exploration of the health and social care employees’ perspective on the impacts of Care Quality Commission (CQC)-regulated services. The CQC plays a paramount role in sustaining, maintaining, and improving the quality of service delivery, being the primary regulator. Nonetheless, these roles have practical implications for health and social care frontliners. The CQC regulations influence the quality of service delivery in England. Based on the foregoing, the present study examines the impact assessment of CQC-regulated activities through the health and social care personnel perspective, covering areas like roles, practices, outcomes, and quality of care. This study uses a quantitative research method as well as a survey method to gather data from various healthcare providers by administering a well-structured Google Form (survey questionnaire) to about 250 persons. About 143 participating individuals within the health and social care sector responded. Data was analysed through the lens of descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. Findings reveal a structural disconnect between the approach to inspection and the health and social care service realities. It is, however, compounded by genuine concerns about accuracy, fairness, frontline engagement, and lack of flexibility in implementation—with 64.3% suggesting that CQC is a reflection of true standards; other results, as also shown in RQ2, indicate that CQC ratings are also influenced by internal strategies and external perceptions. 58.1% and 49% viewed CQC as impactful; meanwhile, 12.6% and 11.9% reflect the gaps in capturing staff needs and the daily operational struggles. Critical gaps in regulatory methodologies and potentially biased approaches are voiced out in the analysis and pinpointed by 10.5% and 12.6% of respondents, respectively. The findings further highlighted the challenges and the positive aspects of CQC regulation. Moreover, the research provides substantial input to the ongoing discussion in both academic and health settings regarding regulation in care settings. It also offers service enhancement and insight to regulatory bodies, policymakers, and health providers.