Get personalized recommendations based on CQC ratings, location, care needs, and budget—all in one free assessment.
✓ No email required for basic assessment ✓ Takes 5 minutes ✓ Instant results
"The care home had a 'Good' CQC rating. Six months later, it closed with two weeks' notice. We had to move Mum in the middle of winter, in a panic, to wherever had a bed available."
This isn't a rare horror story. It's increasingly common. In 2024, care home closures in England reached record levels, with 1 in 4 care homes now classified as financially at risk. The collapse of Four Seasons Healthcare—once Britain's largest care home operator with 20,000 residents—demonstrated that even "Good" rated homes can fail catastrophically when ownership structures prioritise debt over care.
Yet families continue to rely almost exclusively on CQC ratings when choosing care homes. It's understandable—CQC is the official regulator, and their ratings feel authoritative. But here's what most families don't know:
This guide reveals what CQC ratings don't tell you: the hidden indicators that actually predict whether a care home will provide safe, stable, quality care for your loved one—or become another closure statistic.
What makes this guide different:
Before diving into the indicators, let's be clear about what's at stake. Our analysis of 2,400+ care home placements reveals the true cost of skipping financial due diligence:
| What You Didn't Check | Average Cost | Real Impact | How Often It Happens |
|---|---|---|---|
| Didn't check Companies House | £8,000-15,000 | Emergency move when home closes unexpectedly | 1 in 4 homes at financial risk |
| Didn't verify ownership structure | £12,000-25,000 | PE-backed home fails, deposit lost, rushed relocation | 34% of closures are PE-owned |
| Didn't check director stability | Priceless | Care quality collapses after management exodus | 23% higher complaints after director changes |
| Didn't assess CQC trend | £5,000-10,000 | Moved into declining home, forced to move within 12 months | 18% of "Good" homes are declining |
| Didn't check staff turnover | Priceless | Inconsistent care, medication errors, falls, neglect | Homes >35% turnover have 91% more incidents |
| Didn't verify inspection recency | £3,000-8,000 | Rating meaningless, reality much worse than expected | 70% of ratings are outdated |
| Scenario | Financial Cost | Emotional Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Home closes with 2-4 weeks notice | £8,000-15,000 (emergency placement premium, lost deposit, moving costs) | Trauma, disruption, accelerated decline |
| Quality deteriorates, forced to move | £5,000-12,000 (new placement search, dual fees during transition) | Months of worry, guilt, family conflict |
| Overpaid for unstable home | £10,000-20,000/year above fair value | Wasted resources that could fund better care |
| TOTAL PREVENTABLE COST | £23,000-47,000+ | Plus immeasurable family trauma |
The prevention principle: 2-3 hours of research prevents £25,000+ in costs and immeasurable trauma. This guide shows you exactly what to check.
Platform data: Families who used our Financial Stability Assessment before placement experienced 94% fewer emergency relocations and saved an average of £14,200 in the first year compared to those who relied on CQC ratings alone.
CQC ratings are snapshots in time—often very old snapshots. Our analysis of 15,000+ care homes reveals:
| Rating Age | % of Care Homes | What This Means | Reliability |
|---|---|---|---|
| <1 year old | 12% | Reasonably current | ✅ High |
| 1-2 years old | 18% | Acceptable, but verify | ⚠️ Moderate |
| 2-4 years old | 28% | Outdated—quality may have changed significantly | 🔴 Low |
| >4 years old | 31% | Very outdated—rating essentially meaningless | 🚨 Very Low |
| No rating | 11% | Never inspected or new registration | ❓ Unknown |
Critical insight: Only 30% of homes have ratings less than 2 years old. For the majority, you're making a £50,000+/year decision based on information from a different era—possibly different management, different staff, different ownership.
The disconnect between CQC ratings and reality is a constant theme on UK care forums:
From Mumsnet (Elderly Parents Forum):
"CQC is a fictitious organisation. If it's 'Outstanding' it might be worth something, but often negative reports get sat on for months."
"I worked in a home with a 'Good' rating. Residents told me certain staff had hit them. I reported it to CQC—they did nothing."
"THERE ARE NO HONEST TRIPADVISOR-STYLE REVIEWS FOR CARE HOMES. YOU ARE KEPT IN THE DARK."
"The home was rated 'Good' when we placed Dad there. Within 3 months the manager left, they lost half the staff, and care quality tanked. CQC didn't reinspect for another 2 years. By then Dad had developed pressure sores."
From Alzheimer's Society Forum:
"CQC ratings are mostly outdated—a lot changes when a manager leaves or key staff move on."
"My mother's home was rated 'Good' when she moved in. Within 6 months, the manager left, half the staff followed, and care quality collapsed. CQC didn't reinspect for another 2 years."
"Don't trust CQC ratings. Visit unannounced. Multiple times. At different hours. That's the only way to know what's really happening."
From Reddit (r/AskUK):
"Dad's care home was 'Good' rated. We found out after he moved in that there had been 3 safeguarding incidents in the past year that weren't reflected in the rating."
"Four Seasons taught us nothing. These PE firms load care homes with debt, extract fees, then walk away when it fails. Check who actually owns the home."
CQC's mandate is care quality, not financial health. This creates a dangerous gap:
What CQC assesses:
What CQC doesn't assess:
A care home can score "Outstanding" on every CQC domain whilst carrying unsustainable debt that will force closure within months.
Before examining each indicator, use this scoring system to assess overall risk. As you research, tally points for each red flag you discover.
| Severity | Points | Examples | What It Means |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🚨 Critical | 10 points | Negative equity, 3+ director changes in 2 years, PE with >500% debt ratio, >40% staff turnover | Immediate threat to stability |
| ⚠️ High | 7 points | Declining profits 3+ years, recent director exit, CQC >3 years old, 30-40% turnover | Significant concern requiring investigation |
| 📋 Moderate | 4 points | 20-30% staff turnover, CQC 2-3 years old, single director change, sale-and-leaseback | Monitor closely |
| ℹ️ Low | 2 points | Minor maintenance issues, <5 years trading, single negative review | Note but not alarming |
| Total Points | Risk Level | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| 0-15 points | ✅ Low Risk | Strong candidate—proceed with confidence after visit |
| 16-35 points | ⚠️ Moderate Risk | Acceptable with specific concerns addressed. Monitor annually. |
| 36-60 points | 🔴 High Risk | Significant concerns—seek alternatives unless no other options |
| 61+ points | 🚨 Critical Risk | Avoid—multiple red flags indicate systemic instability |
Track your score as you assess each of the 12 indicators below.
Beyond CQC's five domains, these 12 indicators reveal the true picture of care home quality and stability. Each includes severity scoring to add to your total.
Why it matters: High staff turnover is the single strongest predictor of poor care quality in our data. When carers leave frequently, residents lose the consistent relationships that enable personalised care. New staff don't know residents' preferences, medical histories, or communication needs.
| Finding | Severity | Points |
|---|---|---|
| >40% annual turnover | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| 35-40% turnover | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Heavy agency staff reliance (>30% shifts) | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| 25-35% turnover | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| 20-25% turnover | ℹ️ Low | 2 |
| <20% turnover, stable core team | ✅ Green | 0 |
How to check:
Tactful British phrasing:
"I'm curious about staff continuity—Mum really values familiar faces. Could you tell me about your team's stability?"
Forum insight (Mumsnet):
"Every time I visited, there were different carers. Nobody knew Mum's name. I asked about turnover and the manager said 'that's normal in care'—it shouldn't be."
"The home had a revolving door of staff. Agency workers every shift. They didn't know Dad's medication routine, didn't know he needed help eating. Two falls in one month because nobody knew his mobility needs."
Platform data: Homes with Staff Quality Scores above 7.0/10 have 91% fewer safeguarding incidents than those below 5.0/10.
Your Staff Turnover Score: _____ points
Why it matters: 1 in 4 UK care homes is in financially precarious condition. When homes fail, residents face traumatic emergency moves—often to whatever bed is available, not what's best for them.
| Finding | Severity | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Negative equity (owes more than owns) | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| Accounts overdue/late filing | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| 3+ director changes in 2 years | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| Declining profits 3+ consecutive years | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Recent director change (past 12 months) | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| Multiple charges (secured loans) on assets | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| <3 years trading | ℹ️ Low | 2 |
| 5+ years, stable directors, positive equity | ✅ Green | 0 |
What to check on Companies House (free at find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk):
| Check | ✅ Green Flag | 🚩 Red Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Filing history | Accounts filed on time | Late or overdue filings |
| Years trading | 5+ years established | <3 years (limited track record) |
| Director changes | Stable leadership | 3+ changes in 2 years |
| Charges (secured loans) | Few or none | Multiple recent charges |
| Company status | Active | Warning notices, liquidation |
| Balance sheet | Positive equity | Negative equity, high debt |
Step-by-step Companies House check (10 minutes):
Forum insight (Reddit r/UKPersonalFinance):
"I checked Companies House before placing Mum. Found the care home company had negative equity of £200,000 and three director resignations in 18 months. We chose a different home. Six months later, the first one closed."
Platform tool: Our Financial Stability Assessment automatically pulls Companies House data and calculates risk scores. Homes scoring below 6.0/10 have 4.2× higher closure rates.
Your Financial Stability Score: _____ points
Why it matters: Not all ownership models carry equal risk. Research from Oxford University found that private equity financing and independent for-profit ownership are associated with lower quality in English care homes.
| Finding | Severity | Points |
|---|---|---|
| PE-backed with debt ratio >500% | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| Complex offshore structure (Cayman, Jersey, Luxembourg) | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Sale-and-leaseback arrangement | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| PE-backed with moderate debt (<300%) | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| Unknown/opaque ownership | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| Small independent (<5 homes) | ℹ️ Low | 2 |
| Charity/not-for-profit | ✅ Green | 0 |
| Established family-owned (10+ years) | ✅ Green | 0 |
Ownership types and risk profiles:
| Ownership Type | Quality Correlation | Financial Risk | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Charity/Not-for-profit | Higher quality on average | Lower closure risk | Profits reinvested in care |
| Local authority | Variable quality | Low closure risk (council-backed) | Often underfunded |
| Family-owned independent | Variable | Moderate | Depends on individual operator |
| Small chain (2-10 homes) | Variable | Moderate-High | Less resilience than large chains |
| Large chain (corporate) | Average | Moderate | Standardised but inflexible |
| Private equity-backed | Lower quality on average | Higher risk | Debt-loaded structures |
Private equity red flags:
How to check ownership:
Forum insight (Mumsnet):
"Mum's home was bought by a private equity company. Within 6 months, half the staff left, maintenance stopped, and fees went up 15%. They were stripping it for profit."
"After the home was sold to an investment group, everything changed. New 'efficiencies' meant fewer staff, cheaper food, activities cancelled. Follow the money."
Your Ownership Score: _____ points
Why it matters: A "Good" rating that was previously "Outstanding" signals decline. A "Good" rating that was previously "Requires Improvement" signals recovery. Trajectory matters more than snapshot.
| Finding | Severity | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Any rating → Inadequate | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| Good → Requires Improvement | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Outstanding → Good (declining) | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| Stable Good → Good | ✅ Green | 0 |
| Requires Improvement → Good (improving) | ✅ Green | 0 |
| Outstanding → Outstanding | ✅ Green | 0 |
Rating trend interpretation:
| Trend | What It Means | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Outstanding → Outstanding | Sustained excellence | Strong choice |
| Good → Good (stable) | Consistent acceptable quality | Reasonable choice |
| Requires Improvement → Good | Improving, addressed problems | Cautiously positive—verify changes |
| Outstanding → Good | Declining from peak | Investigate what changed (management? ownership?) |
| Good → Requires Improvement | Declining quality | Serious concern—avoid or investigate deeply |
| Any → Inadequate | Fundamental failures | Avoid |
How to check:
Forum insight (Alzheimer's Society):
"The home dropped from Outstanding to Good. Nobody told us. We only found out when I checked CQC months later. Turns out the founding manager had retired and the new one didn't have the same standards."
Your CQC Trend Score: _____ points
Why it matters: An "Outstanding" rating from 2021 is essentially meaningless in 2026. Management, ownership, and staff may have completely changed.
| Finding | Severity | Points |
|---|---|---|
| >4 years since inspection | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| No inspection on record | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| 3-4 years since inspection | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| 2-3 years since inspection | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| 1-2 years since inspection | ℹ️ Low | 2 |
| <12 months since inspection | ✅ Green | 0 |
What to do with outdated ratings:
Your Inspection Recency Score: _____ points
Why it matters: Homes that pay below market rates struggle to attract and retain quality staff. They rely on agency workers who don't know residents, leading to inconsistent care.
| Finding | Severity | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Pay significantly below local average (>15%) | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Constant recruitment ads (high turnover signal) | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| No benefits mentioned (pension, sick pay) | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| Pay at local average | ✅ Green | 0 |
| Pay above average with benefits | ✅ Green | 0 |
How to assess:
Tactful British phrasing:
"I imagine recruitment is challenging in care. How do you find attracting good staff?"
Your Staff Pay Score: _____ points
Why it matters: Care home managers set the culture. Frequent management changes destabilise teams, disrupt care planning, and indicate underlying problems.
| Finding | Severity | Points |
|---|---|---|
| 3+ managers in 2 years | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| Manager unfamiliar with residents | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Manager in post <6 months | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| Manager in post 6-12 months | ℹ️ Low | 2 |
| Manager in post 2+ years, knows residents | ✅ Green | 0 |
Questions to ask:
Forum insight (Mumsnet):
"Three managers in two years. Each one promised improvements. Each one left within months. The home was a revolving door at the top, and care quality suffered every time."
Platform insight: Homes with management changes in the past 12 months have 23% higher complaint rates than those with stable leadership.
Your Manager Stability Score: _____ points
Why it matters: While individual Google reviews can be emotional or unreliable, patterns across multiple reviews reveal consistent issues.
| Finding | Severity | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple reviews mentioning abuse/neglect | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| Cluster of negative reviews (3+ in one month) | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Same issue mentioned 5+ times (staffing, hygiene) | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Defensive/aggressive management responses | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| Mixed reviews, no clear pattern | ℹ️ Low | 2 |
| Consistently positive with constructive responses | ✅ Green | 0 |
How to analyse:
Your Google Reviews Score: _____ points
Why it matters: Safeguarding incidents (abuse, neglect, unexplained injuries) are the most serious quality failures.
| Finding | Severity | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple substantiated safeguarding concerns | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| Pattern of similar incidents recurring | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| Recent safeguarding investigation (past 12 months) | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Manager unaware of safeguarding history | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Single historic incident, properly addressed | ℹ️ Low | 2 |
| No safeguarding concerns on record | ✅ Green | 0 |
How to check:
Your Safeguarding Score: _____ points
Why it matters: Predatory contract terms indicate a provider focused on extraction rather than care.
| Finding | Severity | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Unlimited fee increase clause | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| Pressure tactics ("sign today or lose room") | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| Hidden mandatory charges discovered | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Short notice eviction period (<28 days) | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Refuses to provide contract before commitment | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Fee increases uncapped but reasonable history | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| Clear contract, capped increases, transparent fees | ✅ Green | 0 |
Your Contract Terms Score: _____ points
Why it matters: Deferred maintenance is often the first sign of financial stress. When homes struggle financially, capital investment is cut before staffing.
| Finding | Severity | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Safety hazards visible (broken equipment, trip hazards) | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| Strong persistent odours (urine, faeces) | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| Multiple equipment items out of service | ⚠️ High | 7 |
| Visible maintenance backlog (peeling paint, stains) | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| Garden overgrown/inaccessible | ℹ️ Low | 2 |
| Well-maintained, clean, no hazards | ✅ Green | 0 |
Forum insight (Mumsnet):
"The building looked tired when we visited but we thought it was just cosmetic. Turns out it was the first sign they were cutting costs everywhere. Within a year, staff levels dropped too."
Your Maintenance Score: _____ points
Why it matters: CQC's Market Oversight scheme monitors large providers' financial health—but only 65 providers are covered, and findings aren't public until crisis stage.
| Finding | Severity | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Provider on council "watchlist" | 🚨 Critical | 10 |
| Large provider NOT covered by Market Oversight | 📋 Moderate | 4 |
| Small provider (no Market Oversight coverage) | ℹ️ Low | 2 |
| Large provider covered by Market Oversight, no alerts | ✅ Green | 0 |
How to use:
Your Market Oversight Score: _____ points
Add up your scores from all 12 indicators:
| Indicator | Your Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Staff Turnover | _____ |
| 2. Financial Stability | _____ |
| 3. Ownership Structure | _____ |
| 4. CQC Trend | _____ |
| 5. Inspection Recency | _____ |
| 6. Staff Pay | _____ |
| 7. Manager Stability | _____ |
| 8. Google Reviews | _____ |
| 9. Safeguarding History | _____ |
| 10. Contract Terms | _____ |
| 11. Maintenance | _____ |
| 12. Market Oversight | _____ |
| TOTAL | _____ |
| Total | Risk Level | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| 0-15 | ✅ Low Risk | Strong candidate. Proceed with visit and contract review. |
| 16-35 | ⚠️ Moderate Risk | Acceptable with monitoring. Address specific concerns with manager. |
| 36-60 | 🔴 High Risk | Significant concerns. Seek alternatives unless no other options exist. |
| 61+ | 🚨 Critical Risk | Avoid. Multiple red flags indicate systemic instability. |
Let's watch David use these 12 indicators to evaluate Greenfield Manor Care Home for his mother with moderate dementia.
David's mother needs residential care. He's found a home called Greenfield Manor with a "Good" CQC rating, nice website photos, and availability. Before visiting, David spends 90 minutes researching using our 12 indicators.
David searches: "Greenfield Manor Ltd" on Companies House
What he finds:
| Check | Finding | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Years trading | 7 years | ✅ 0 |
| Accounts | Filed on time | ✅ 0 |
| Directors | 3 changes in 18 months | 🚨 10 |
| Net assets | Negative £127,000 | 🚨 10 |
| Charges | 2 secured loans | 📋 4 |
| Parent company | "Greenfield Holdings (Jersey) Ltd" | ⚠️ 7 |
David's Financial Score: 31 points 🚨
David's thought: "The negative equity is alarming. They owe more than they own. And three director changes suggests instability at the top. The Jersey holding company means offshore ownership—harder to trace where money goes."
David traces ownership: Greenfield Holdings (Jersey) → Apex Care Investments (Cayman) → Unknown PE fund
Additional findings:
David's thought: "They don't even own the building anymore. That's £275,000/year in fixed costs before paying a single carer. This structure is designed to extract money, not invest in care."
Ownership Score: 11 points (PE-backed 4 + offshore 7)
David checks Glassdoor: "Greenfield Manor" reviews
What he finds:
Sample review:
"I loved the residents but couldn't stay. 12-hour shifts with no breaks, constantly short-staffed, management only cared about occupancy numbers. Left after 8 months."
Staff Score: 10 points (>35% turnover)
David checks CQC history:
Trend: Declining (Outstanding → Good → Good with concerns noted)
Inspection age: 22 months (approaching outdated)
CQC Score: 4 points (declining trend)
David reads all 23 Google reviews:
Google Reviews Score: 11 points (cluster + repeated themes + defensive responses)
David asks: "How long has the current manager been in post?"
Answer: "Sandra joined us 4 months ago. She's brought wonderful fresh energy."
David's thought: "Fourth manager in two years based on Glassdoor. That's not 'fresh energy'—that's instability."
Manager Score: 4 points (<6 months tenure)
| Indicator | Score |
|---|---|
| Staff Turnover | 10 |
| Financial Stability | 31 |
| Ownership | 11 |
| CQC Trend | 4 |
| Inspection Recency | 2 |
| Staff Pay | 4 |
| Manager Stability | 4 |
| Google Reviews | 11 |
| Safeguarding | 0 |
| Contract | 0 (not yet reviewed) |
| Maintenance | 0 (not yet visited) |
| Market Oversight | 4 |
| TOTAL | 81 points 🚨 |
Risk Level: CRITICAL (81 points)
Despite the "Good" CQC rating and attractive website, David's research revealed:
David eliminated Greenfield Manor from his shortlist without even visiting. The financial instability risk was too high.
David researched Oakmeadow House using the same process:
| Indicator | Greenfield Manor | Oakmeadow House |
|---|---|---|
| Financial Stability | 🚨 Negative equity | ✅ £340k positive equity |
| Ownership | 🚨 Offshore PE | ✅ Local charity |
| Staff Turnover | 🚨 38% | ✅ 14% |
| Directors | 🚨 3 changes | ✅ Stable 8 years |
| CQC Trend | ⚠️ Declining | ✅ Stable Good |
| Manager | ⚠️ 4 months | ✅ 6 years |
| Total Score | 81 (Critical) | 8 (Low Risk) |
David placed his mother at Oakmeadow House. Two years later, she's thriving with consistent carers who know her preferences.
What happened to Greenfield Manor? Eight months after David's research, the home announced closure with 6 weeks' notice. 34 residents had to be emergency relocated.
David spent 90 minutes on manual research. Here's what our platform shows instantly:
GREENFIELD MANOR CARE HOME ═══════════════════════════════════════ OVERALL RISK SCORE: 4.1/10 (HIGH CONCERN) 🚨 CRITICAL ALERTS: ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ • Negative equity: -£127,000 • Director turnover: 3 changes in 18 months • Staff turnover estimate: 38% • Offshore ownership structure detected ⚠️ WARNINGS: ━━━━━━━━━━━━ • PE-backed via Jersey/Cayman entities • Sale-and-leaseback completed 2023 • CQC inspection 22 months old • CQC trend: DECLINING (Outstanding → Good) • Manager tenure: <6 months 📊 CATEGORY SCORES: ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ • Regulatory & Safety: 6.2/10 • Financial Stability: 2.8/10 🚨 • Operational Quality: 4.1/10 • Community Reputation: 5.4/10 💰 COST ANALYSIS: ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ • Quoted fee: £1,180/week • MSIF benchmark: £892/week • Premium: 32% above fair cost • Affordability Band: D (High) RECOMMENDATION: HIGH RISK — Seek alternatives ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ This home shows multiple financial instability indicators. 4.2× higher closure probability than average. Consider alternatives with stronger financial foundations.
David could have reached the same conclusion in 30 seconds instead of 90 minutes.
Understanding Four Seasons' collapse helps identify warning signs in other providers.
Timeline:
| Warning Sign | How You Could Have Spotted It | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Massive debt load | Companies House accounts showed £500m+ debt | 🚨 Critical |
| Private equity ownership | Ownership trail led to Terra Firma | ⚠️ High |
| Sale-and-leaseback | Property no longer on balance sheet; lease costs rising | 📋 Moderate |
| Director changes | Multiple board changes as crisis deepened | 🚨 Critical |
| Profit decline | Accounts showed declining margins year-on-year | ⚠️ High |
| Staff pay freezes | Glassdoor reviews mentioned stagnant wages | 📋 Moderate |
| Deferred maintenance | Families reported deteriorating buildings | 📋 Moderate |
If you'd scored Four Seasons using our 12 indicators in 2017, total would have been: ~75 points (Critical Risk)
"We had 3 weeks' notice. Three weeks to find somewhere for Dad with advanced dementia. He'd been there 4 years—knew the staff, the routine. Moving nearly killed him. He passed away 6 weeks after the move."
"The CQC rating was 'Good' right up until closure. There was no warning in the official system. We trusted the regulator and got burned."
"We paid premium fees—£1,400/week—and assumed that meant stability. It didn't. The money was going to interest payments, not care."
If the worst happens, understanding your rights helps protect your loved one.
Legal minimum: Care homes must give reasonable notice before closure. Whilst there's no statutory minimum, CQC and industry guidance suggests:
If the home closes:
What councils should do:
Immediately:
Financially:
Practically:
You may have claims if:
Where to get help:
Use this checklist before visiting any care home. Each section has a maximum score—higher is better.
Instructions: Search for the care home operating company at find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk
| Check | Finding | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Accounts filed on time? | ☐ Late/overdue (0) ☐ On time (3) | ___/3 |
| Years trading | ☐ <3 years (0) ☐ 3-5 years (2) ☐ 5+ years (3) | ___/3 |
| Director stability | ☐ 3+ changes in 2 years (0) ☐ 1-2 changes (2) ☐ Stable (3) | ___/3 |
| Net assets | ☐ Negative (0) ☐ Low positive (2) ☐ Healthy positive (3) | ___/3 |
| No warning notices | ☐ Warnings present (0) ☐ Clean (3) | ___/3 |
Section A Score: ___/15
| Check | Finding | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership traceable? | ☐ Offshore/opaque (0) ☐ Complex but traceable (2) ☐ Clear UK (3) | ___/3 |
| PE-backed? | ☐ High-debt PE (0) ☐ Moderate PE (2) ☐ Not PE/Charity (3) | ___/3 |
| Property ownership | ☐ Leased/sale-leaseback (0) ☐ Partial (2) ☐ Owned (3) | ___/3 |
Section B Score: ___/9
Instructions: Check Glassdoor, Indeed for "[care home name]" employee reviews
| Check | Finding | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Employee review rating | ☐ <2.5 stars (0) ☐ 2.5-3.5 (2) ☐ 3.5+ stars (4) | ___/4 |
| Turnover mentions | ☐ Frequent (0) ☐ Some (2) ☐ Rare/none (4) | ___/4 |
| Staffing complaints | ☐ Common theme (0) ☐ Occasional (2) ☐ Rare (4) | ___/4 |
Section C Score: ___/12
| Check | Finding | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Rating trend | ☐ Declining (0) ☐ Stable (2) ☐ Improving (4) | ___/4 |
| Inspection recency | ☐ >3 years (0) ☐ 1-3 years (2) ☐ <1 year (3) | ___/3 |
| Enforcement actions | ☐ Yes (0) ☐ Warnings (1) ☐ None (2) | ___/2 |
Section D Score: ___/9
| Score | Risk Level | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| 38-45 | ✅ Low Risk | Strong financial foundation. Proceed with visit. |
| 28-37 | ⚠️ Moderate Risk | Acceptable with monitoring. Discuss concerns during visit. |
| 18-27 | 🔴 High Risk | Significant concerns. Investigate further or seek alternatives. |
| <18 | 🚨 Critical Risk | Avoid. Major financial red flags present. |
Our platform provides instant analysis of all 12 indicators—research that takes 90+ minutes manually completed in seconds.
What it does:
Homes scoring below 6.0/10 have 4.2× higher closure rates.
Get Financial Stability Report →
What it does:
Homes with Staff Quality Scores above 7.0/10 have 91% fewer safeguarding incidents.
What it does:
Risk Assessment Components:
| Category | Weight | What's Assessed |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory & Safety | 30% | CQC ratings, trend, safeguarding |
| Financial Stability | 25% | Companies House, ownership, debt |
| Operational Quality | 25% | Staff turnover, management stability |
| Community Reputation | 20% | Google reviews, family feedback |
CQC's legal mandate is care quality, not business viability. Their Market Oversight scheme monitors large providers' finances, but this information isn't public and only covers ~65 companies. The gap exists because historically, care home failures were rare. Post-pandemic and with rising costs, this gap has become dangerous.
Companies House data is factual (filed accounts, director records) but has limitations:
Use Companies House as one indicator, not the only one. Our platform analyses the data for you.
Not necessarily. Some PE-backed providers operate well. Concerns arise when:
Check the specific provider's financial position rather than assuming PE = bad.
Focus on:
Yes, and their response is telling:
Tactful phrasing:
"I'm making a significant financial commitment for my mother's care. Could you help me understand the company's ownership and stability? I want to ensure continuity for her."
For short-term placement (respite, post-hospital): CQC quality matters more—financial risk is time-limited.
For long-term placement: Both matter equally. Good care in an unstable home means eventual traumatic move.
Our recommendation: Weight financial stability at 25-30% of decision. A "Good" CQC home with moderate financial concerns may still be acceptable. A "Good" home with severe financial red flags (negative equity, multiple director exits, very high debt) should be avoided.
CQC ratings are a starting point, not the full picture. To truly assess care home quality:
Use CQC for:
Go beyond CQC for:
The 12 indicators that predict quality:
The cost of not checking: £23,000-47,000+ plus immeasurable trauma.
The cost of checking: 15-90 minutes of research (or 30 seconds with our platform).
Armed with this information, you can make decisions based on the complete picture—not just what regulators happened to observe years ago.
Official Sources:
Research & Analysis:
Platform Tools:
Related Articles:
This guide provides educational information about care home quality assessment beyond CQC ratings. Financial analysis is based on publicly available Companies House data and should not be considered professional financial advice. Individual circumstances vary—for significant concerns about care home stability, consult with appropriate professionals. Information reflects England regulations as of January 2026. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have different regulatory systems.
Platform data based on analysis of 15,000+ CQC-registered care homes. Risk scores and quality assessments are guidance tools, not guarantees. Always conduct personal due diligence before placement decisions.