Now, it has been two years since CQC Regulation 9A came into place in April 2024. And this has been considered a success. The value and processes surrounding visitation in social care have become more established in the sector, while visits have been recognised as a necessity in the delivery of care and maintenance of well-being.

However, with the importance of visitation further emphasised, new questions surrounding visitors in relation to Regulation 9A have arisen. Additionally, not all providers have adapted to the new expectations and rulings from this regulation. As part of the process, the DHSC conducted a post-implementation review (PIR) between April 2025 and February 2026.

What Is CQC Regulation 9A?

Amid legislation from DHSC under the CQC’s 2008 Health and Social Care Act in December 2023, CQC Regulation 9A was proposed.

Formally introduced into practice on April 6 2024. This was done to ensure that residents in social care receive regular, meaningful visitations to assure a better quality of care. Meanwhile, this also encourages care teams to enact considered, consistent decision-making to enable visitations while following due processes.

This was a vital step in the social care sector. Regulation 9A’s introduction recognised visits as a fundamental aspect of social care delivery, rather than a simple bonus for residents. Additionally, occupants became more represented in the manner in which they receive social care.

A year into practice, the DHSC conducted a PIR to evaluate the effectiveness and levels of compliance surrounding this regulation. Officially published on March 18, the findings are vast and extremely helpful for providers to be aware in the strive to deliver outstanding care.

The DHSC PIR’s Key Findings

DHSC’s PIR in 2025 collected evidence using:

  • Ten focus groups (families and carers).
  • Case studies, drawn from the CQC, LGSCO, and PHSO.
  • Submissions from advocacy groups.
  • A public call for evidence – receiving 869 responses.
  • A survey of 710 locations.
  • Analysis of Capacity Tracker data.

While the review made note of the limitations, particularly from self-selection and CQC data collection, the discovered themes across the data set were meaningful. And this should be considered recommended reading for any senior decision makers or Registered Managers in the social care sector.

With the findings drawn from grounded CQC assessment findings and human experiences across locations, surveys, and focus groups, the findings are vital for providers to understand. Therefore, the data collected bridges the gap between compliance on paper and actual day-to-day practice. This article will explore those findings, which could be considered vital moving forward in the social care sector.

The Gaps In Regulation 9A’s Implementation

DHSC’s report pointed out that the Regulation has not been consistently embedded across governance systems nationwide. This was found through the Rights for Residents Survey, which discovered that 42% of residents and families were unaware of the regulation.

But these inconsistencies were not restricted to visitors and occupants. As 31% reported restrictions and limitations on their visits, with lapses in clarity, leaving visitors with little understanding. Sometimes, these incidents were reported as “blanket bans”.

Both of these percentages make up a staggering amount of the data sample, and point towards one common disparity across providers – communication. While this can be expected with a newly introduced regulation, it presents a wider concern towards how providers introduce changes and new regulations from the top down.

If care teams lack a consistent understanding of a regulation, then lapses in compliance will simply exist. Therefore, these findings should encourage providers to consider how they introduce changes. With the correct governance systems and documentation processes in place, providers should be able to measure the effectiveness of their changes.

Providers can improve assurance of Regulation 9A via internal audit. Consideration of a learning session after an anonymous survey amongst care delivery teams could be effective.

Restrictive Practices and Consistent Auditing

The core objective surrounding Regulation 9A’s introduction was to enhance the rights of care home residents. This regulation’s inception should have raised questions about providers’ policies, particularly how much they reflect individual needs and proactive risk assessment around visitation.

However, the DHSC’s review identified persistent misuse of blanket restrictions, while only 20% of residents felt their challenge to restrictive practices was resolved. This expresses that there is still a disparity where provider policies are not addressing or communicating rulings around restrictive practices.

This exemplifies the importance of internal audit for social care providers. Policies, in both paper and practice, should identify what deems a visitation restriction unlawful. The manner in which these practices occur is vital to the representation and overall treatment of care home residents, and this should be put into practice in line with CQC Regulation 9A.

To create a coherent understanding of lawful restrictive practices across care teams, providers should consider conducting learning sessions. These tutorials should include:

  • Breakdown of Regulation 9A’s baseline expectations and how these can be evidenced.
  • Reviews of individual needs regarding visitation.
  • Care documentation and risk assessment processes.
  • Understanding of individual care plans.
  • How CQC Regulation 9A should be in conjunction with Regulation 11 – ‘Need For Consent’.

All learning sessions should be thoroughly documented. This will support both wider services and internal systems in standing up to potential regulatory scrutiny.

Visitor, Or Partner In Care?

Throughout the study, consensus emerged that there is a disparity found between ‘visitors‘ and ‘care partners’. An understanding was made that care partners provided value beyond social factors, establishing them as a vital cog for an occupant’s well-being. This created a grey area in the ruling of restrictions and blanket bans in the social care sector.

So while Regulation 9A has performed well in establishing the importance of visitation, new questions have to be asked in terms of the specific value different visitors can provide residents – should a care partner face the same restrictions as a visitor?. Thus, the study pointed out that 42% of people found complaint routes towards seemingly unlawful restrictions ineffective, showing a huge gap in care communication, and possibly CQC compliance.

This outlined a future use of this study. As now, the DHSC now pledging to provide new resources and decision-making maps to encourage a culture of ‘open visiting‘ in social care. However, this does not have to be waited on. With the CQC currently underway in their plans to conduct 9,000 inspections before September, providers should be proactive in their approach. These findings can be interpreted as a call-to-action for social care’s most attentive leaders.

Through internal audits and communication shifts, teams could be fully informed of Regulation 9A and the importance of visitation. Enforcement and learning should be actively monitored, while the decision-making processes around visit restrictions should be firmly embedded into governance systems.

Regulation 9A – Moving Forward

Findings from the DHSC study establish that Regulation 9A has been successful in its original intentions. However, the consistency and communication have been irregular, leaving stakeholders uncertain of particular rights surrounding visitation. This can be considered natural for a newly introduced regulation; however, the current regulatory environment encourages a proactive approach.

New questions surrounding the value of different visitors can be seen as a step in the right direction. This exemplifies that visitation is becoming recognised as a vital cornerstone of social care delivery, and future efforts to recognise the importance of care partners should be encouraged.

As previously mentioned, the communication of Regulation 9A created some staggering disparities throughout the study. So providers should be encouraged to reconsider their internal policies, learning sessions, and documentation in relation to both Regulation 9A and Regulation 11.

Stay Ahead Of CQC Regulation

Last month, the CQC announced its ‘Returning to Good and Outstanding‘ project, which has begun with non-clinical assessments of low-risk GP practices, with plans to increase regulatory visibility. With this project likely to be introduced to the social care sector in due course, providers should act now.

Informed by CQC expertise, Edmonds Governance & Strategy offers a perspective built from both sides of CQC regulation. As a former Nominated Individual and Director of Governance and Quality Improvement, we offer:

  • Various mock inspection/quality assessment packages, including written reports.
  • CQC registration support.
  • CQC enforcement support.
  • Review of policies and documentation processes.
  • Thorough risk assessments and improvement plans.
  • Regulatory advisory and coaching support.
  • Learning packages and regulatory-informed learning sessions.
  • Bespoke support

Reach out today using our contact form. Our consultant is always open to a free, non-obligation chat about your service’s current position and where we could support your progression.