A Good from July 2022, measured under a framework CQC has since replaced
This is JAM Care’s published position, read from the CQC register on 21 August 2026 — and the pattern across the 2,147 homecare services that have been rated under the framework which replaced the one your rating was earned under.
The 30-second read
Position
Rated Good overall and on all five key questions, published 14 July 2022 — 4.1 years ago. No report under the current framework has been published for JAM Care, so no statement scores exist.
What’s changing
The six shifts in the guide you downloaded are the rules the next assessment is written against. The sector-specific frameworks are in pilot until October and due to take effect at the end of 2026.
The pattern
Of 799 homecare services that held a Good under the previous framework and have since been re-rated, 158 came out below it. The sector’s weakest statement is governance — 38.5% of rated peers score it below Good.
The 30 minutes
What the register cannot show is where JAM Care’s evidence sits today, across seven registered specialisms rather than the one service the 2022 report describes. You leave with your first three priorities.
Since the report was published on 14 July 2022. CQC has named 6+ years in adult social care as a re-assessment priority band, so JAM Care has not yet reached it — the median dated rating on the register is 4.39 years old.
Goods that did not hold
158 / 799
Homecare services that held a Good under the previous framework and came out below Good when they were re-rated under the current one. 610 held it; 31 rose to Outstanding.
Sector’s weakest statement
38.5%
Of 2,142 rated homecare services, the share scoring governance, management and sustainability below Good — weakest of the 33 scored statements. Cohort average 2.47 of 4.
The clock on that rating
CQC register · read 21 Aug 2026
5 JANUARY 2021
JAM Care registered with CQC as a homecare agency in Telford, under Jam Care Limited.
14 JULY 2022
Inspection report published: Good overall and on all five key questions. No breaches recorded, no enforcement action. The report describes personal care for people with physical disabilities and sensory impairments, with six people using the service at the time.
6 JULY 2023
CQC reviewed the information it holds and, in the words carried on the register, “We have not found evidence that we need to reassess the rating at this stage.” The rating stood.
DEC 2023 – JUL 2026
2,147 homecare services took on a rating published under the Single Assessment Framework — 34 quality statements, each scored 1 to 4. Earliest of those reports 22 December 2023, most recent 31 July 2026. JAM Care was not among them.
21 AUGUST 2026 · TODAY
The rating a commissioner, a local authority or a family reads today is still the July 2022 one. The four sector frameworks replacing the SAF are in pilot until October, due to take effect at the end of 2026.
What’s changing under that rating
Draft ASC framework v9.1
The six shifts in the guide you downloaded are the rules this analysis is read against, so they are not re-taught here. Two of them decide what a 2022 Good is worth: judgements move from a calculated score to written descriptors, and evidence is read continuously from a provider’s own systems rather than assembled for a visit. JAM Care has no scored statements for the first to act on — the exposure rather than a reprieve, because it also means there is no current-framework evidence base on file to carry forward.
01 Outcomes over process02 Continuous, intelligence-led monitoring03 Inequalities & resource efficiency in scope04 Workforce inside well-led05 Descriptor-led, not score-led06 34 statements → sector-specific KLOEs
Draft Adult Social Care Assessment Framework v9.1, March 2026 · consultation closed 12 June 2026 · pilots June–October 2026 · effect from end 2026. The descriptors are still in draft.
Your five key questions, as published
Report published 14 Jul 2022
Key question
What the published report records
Rating
Safe
Safeguarding understood by staff; enough staff, recruited and inducted safely; risks assessed and managed through care plans.
Good
Effective
Staff trained and working in consistent teams; people involved in their assessments and reviews; clear guidance on health needs.
Good
Caring
Independence encouraged; privacy and dignity promoted; people able to direct their own care.
Good
Responsive
Individual needs and communication preferences understood; clear complaints systems in place.
Good
Well-led
Feedback sought and used to shape the service; a learning culture encouraged; staff supported in their roles.
Good
Ratings and report date as printed on the CQC register, verified live on 21 August 2026 · a pre-framework report, so no 1–4 statement scores and no key-question percentages exist for JAM Care · the report’s summary is not written key question by key question, so the notes above group its own findings against each
What the rating covers, and what the register now lists
Two published sources, four years apart
A rating covers what the inspection looked at, and the 2022 report is explicit about its own scope: “In this service, the Care Quality Commission can only inspect the service received by people who get support with personal care” — and, in the same paragraph, “Not everyone who used the service received personal care.”
What the 2022 report describes
A domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people with physical disabilities and sensory impairments, with six people using the service at the time of the inspection — and, on CQC’s own statement above, only the part of it received by people getting personal care.
What the register lists today, 21 August 2026
Two regulated activities — personal care, and treatment of disease, disorder or injury — across seven service specialisms: adults over 65, adults under 65, children (0–18), dementia, learning disabilities, physical disabilities and sensory impairments.
Both are published fact, four years apart. Where the register is wider than the report, there is registered activity the published rating does not describe — and for a commissioner or a private client that rating is the summary of the whole agency.
What the current framework did to homecare Goods
799 services · re-rated · England
This is the closest measurable answer to the obvious question. Across England, 799 homecare services held a Good under the previous framework and have since had a rating published under the current one. These are their outcomes.
Held their Good (610)
76.3%
Rose to Outstanding (31)
3.9%
Requires improvement (141)
17.6%
Inadequate (17)
2.1%
158 of the 799 — about one in five — came out below Good. Among the same 799, well-led was rated below Good 185 times and safe 156 times. The median gap between the old rating and the new one was 6.2 years; JAM Care’s is 4.1, and the difference between those two numbers is the window that is still open. Holding a Good is where all 799 of these services started — it was never a position within the outcome.
Across the 2,147 rated homecare services, these six quality statements are scored below Good most often. Nationally, among all services rated below Good, 98% are also below Good on well-led and 95% on safe — a rating rarely falls on the care itself. Closer to home, 55 of the 167 West Midlands homecare services with a current-framework rating (32.9%) sit below Good, against 20.5% nationally.
Governance, management and sustainability2.47 · 38.5% below
Safe and effective staffing2.67 · 28.1% below
Involving people to manage risks2.67 · 27.9% below
Medicines optimisation2.67 · 27.4% below
Learning, improvement and innovation2.77 · 23.0% below
Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders2.82 · 20.2% below
Show what inspectors typically find behind each
Governance, management and sustainability (well-led · 2.47 avg · 38.5% below Good) — typically audit follow-through that stops at the finding, action tracking that cannot show a fix landed, and evidence spread across systems that do not speak to each other.
Safe and effective staffing (safe · 2.67 · 28.1% below Good) — typically supervision behind the provider’s own standard, induction gaps for new care workers, recruitment checks done but not consistently evidenced.
Involving people to manage risks (safe · 2.67 · 27.9% below Good) — typically risk assessments left on a template, positive risk-taking absent, the person’s own voice missing from the plan that manages their risk.
Medicines optimisation (safe · 2.67 · 27.4% below Good) — typically gaps in medicines records kept in people’s homes, missing as-required protocols, and time-critical medicines (Parkinson’s, insulin, anticoagulants) not flagged as such.
Learning, improvement and innovation (well-led · 2.77 · 23.0% below Good) — typically no visible loop from incident to learning to a change in practice, and training records that lag the rota rather than driving it.
Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders (well-led · 2.82 · 20.2% below Good) — typically registered-manager turnover, leadership visibility thin across a dispersed workforce, staff unsure where a decision sits.
Cohort average and share below Good per statement, across the 2,147 rated homecare services (n per statement 2,140–2,143). 33 of the 34 quality statements carry a score in this cohort; environmental sustainability is unscored throughout. These are the sector’s recurring patterns behind a low score, not observations about JAM Care.
From the published record
3 strengths · 3 to watch
The strengths below are what the inspector recorded in 2022, in their words. That report records no areas requiring improvement — so the three watch items are about what the record covers and how old it is, not about the care it describes.
Strength
Safeguarding understood on the ground
Inspectors recorded that “People were supported safely by staff who understood how to report any concerns about abuse”, with enough staff available and safe recruitment and induction.
Strength
Choice, and least-restrictive practice
The report notes people “were able to choose things for themselves and direct their own care”, and that staff supported them “in the least restrictive way possible”, with policies and systems supporting it.
Strength
Feedback used, not just collected
Inspectors recorded clear complaints systems, a learning culture encouraged, and that “There were systems in place to seek feedback and this was used to shape the service”.
Watch
The report states its own limits
“In this service, the Care Quality Commission can only inspect the service received by people who get support with personal care” — and not everyone using the service received personal care. The rating covers that scope.
Watch
The evidence base is a 2022 snapshot
The report describes six people using the service at the time of the inspection. Whatever the service looks like now, the position on the register was formed on that.
Watch
The last CQC look was at the data
On 6 July 2023 CQC reviewed the information it holds and did not reassess. Between assessments its published approach is intelligence-led: statutory notifications, complaints and workforce returns are read continuously.
What this analysis cannot see
The reason for the conversation
Everything above is read from outside: your published report, your registration record, and the pattern across 2,147 rated peers. What none of it can show is where JAM Care’s evidence sits today against the questions the next assessment will ask — care plans, medicines records, supervision, oversight and the systems they live in, as they stand this month rather than in July 2022. That is the work of the thirty minutes: we map your real evidence against the incoming questions with you, and you leave knowing your first three priorities instead of guessing at them.
What we’d work through together
6 items · the agenda for the call
Not a list to work through alone — the agenda for the call, drawn from your published record and the incoming framework. The first three are time-sensitive while the frameworks are still in draft; the rest compound.
01
The seven specialisms on your registration, and which of them the evidence can currently show
NowQ3 2026
02
Where CQC-relevant evidence actually lives across your systems, and who owns each one
NowQ3 2026
03
Well-led on JAM Care’s terms — governance, and what a four-year-old report cannot evidence
HighQ3 2026
04
What a 2022 Good does in a tender, and what would change it
HighQ3–Q4 2026
05
The part of the service the 2022 report says CQC could not inspect
MediumQ4 2026
06
The two evidence areas you would put first if the next assessment were this quarter
MediumQ4 2026
Show what each item turns on
Turns on which of the seven registered specialisms you are actively delivering today, and what documented outcomes exist behind each of them.
Turns on the systems you actually run — rostering, care planning, medicines, incidents, HR — and how long it takes to get one person’s full record out of them.
Turns on what your governance cycle produces in writing each month, and whether a finding can be traced to the change it caused.
Turns on what commissioners and private clients have been asking you for that a four-year-old rating no longer answers on its own.
Turns on how much of the service sits outside the personal-care scope the 2022 report names, and what you can show for it.
Turns on your own read of where the evidence is thinnest — the one input no external analysis can supply.
We’d cover each of these against your live evidence on the call, not hand them over as homework
Be inspection-ready before the inspector
GreenM are healthcare data and AI specialists. We connect the evidence a service already generates — care plans, medicines records, supervision, incidents, people’s own feedback — so it reads cleanly against the questions the new framework asks, rather than being assembled the week before a visit. The frameworks replacing the SAF are in pilot now and due to take effect at the end of 2026, and re-mapping evidence is cheaper before that than after. In thirty minutes you’ll leave with the six items above narrowed to the three that matter first for JAM Care, and the first move on each.
