A 2026 analysis of Care Quality Commission data provides a useful snapshot of how care-home ratings vary across England. High Speed Training analysed the most recent CQC data available to it for 13,657 care homes and reported that 82.7% were rated Good or Outstanding. The national figure is encouraging, but the regional and local differences are more useful for training providers than a simple league table. Ratings reflect the quality of regulated services, not training performance alone, so the responsible question is what providers can learn from the patterns without claiming that a course, staffing intervention or technology directly caused a particular CQC result.
The report is based on CQC ratings for 13,657 care homes
High Speed Training's CQC Ratings Report describes itself as a state-of-play analysis of care-home ratings in England. It uses CQC data covering 13,657 homes and focuses on adult care and support services in care-home settings.
CQC ratings use four overall categories: Outstanding, Good, Requires Improvement and Inadequate. These ratings are regulatory judgements about care services. Training can contribute to workforce capability, but the rating of a home also depends on leadership, systems, practice and other aspects of service delivery. It would therefore be misleading to read the report as a ranking of training quality.
More than four in five homes in the analysis were Good or Outstanding
The report found that 82.7% of the care homes analysed were rated Good or Outstanding, with 78.36% rated Good. That means the large majority in this dataset were meeting or exceeding the level represented by a Good rating, while a meaningful minority still sat in Requires Improvement or Inadequate categories.
For education and training organisations working with adult social care, the figure provides context rather than a sales claim. It does not show that a particular training programme will improve a home's rating, and it should not be used to promise regulatory outcomes. It does show why providers need to understand the operational environment in which learners will apply their knowledge.
The North East led the regional Good-or-Outstanding measure
High Speed Training ranked the North East first among English regions, with 91.50% of homes in its analysis rated Good or Outstanding. London followed at 89.76%, and the South West was third at 88.38%.
The same report found a less favourable pattern in parts of the country. It highlighted the West Midlands as having 22.5% of homes rated Requires Improvement. Regional differences can help providers ask better questions about local workforce development, but they should not be treated as proof that one region's staff are intrinsically better trained than another's.
Local-authority results show how much variation can sit inside regions
The report also breaks the data down below regional level. Westminster, Islington, Merton and Bristol each recorded 100% of the homes included in the analysis as Good or Outstanding. On the narrower Outstanding measure, Windsor and Maidenhead led at 15.38%, followed by Trafford at 13.73%, with Bracknell Forest and South Gloucestershire each at 13.33%.
These percentages need context. Local authorities can have different numbers and mixes of care homes, so a percentage should not be read without understanding the underlying population. A training provider using local rating data for planning should look beyond rank position and examine the actual services, workforce and learning needs in the area it serves.
The report suggests possible pressures rather than proving causes
High Speed Training discusses factors that may contribute to regional disparities, including workforce pressure, staff turnover, investment and access to technologies such as digital record-keeping. These are plausible areas for further investigation, but the ratings analysis itself does not establish that any one factor caused a region or home to receive its rating.
That distinction is particularly important in training content. It is reasonable to explore how leadership, staff development, record quality or digital capability can support better practice. It is not reasonable to claim that buying a particular course or system will automatically move a service from Requires Improvement to Good.
Training should connect to practice, supervision and evidence
Care-sector learning has most value when staff can connect it to the situations they encounter at work. Providers can design training around realistic decisions, clear responsibilities and opportunities to apply learning rather than relying only on information transfer. Managers then have a role in reinforcing that learning through supervision, observation and local procedures.
For regulated services, evidence also matters. A completed course record demonstrates participation; it does not by itself demonstrate that practice is safe, effective or consistently embedded. Training providers should be clear about what their assessment establishes and what remains the employer's responsibility in day-to-day service delivery.
National ratings are useful for identifying questions, not prescribing answers
A national dataset can help a provider identify where further enquiry may be worthwhile. A region with a higher proportion of Requires Improvement ratings may prompt conversations with employers about recurring development needs. A high-performing area may be useful for exploring practice that organisations themselves consider effective.
But ratings alone cannot diagnose a learning need. Providers should combine public regulatory information with employer discussion, learner evidence and the requirements of the specific role. That produces a more defensible training response than assuming every lower-rated service needs the same course.
The strongest lesson is to use the report carefully
The verified 2026 High Speed Training report gives a clear snapshot: it analysed 13,657 English care homes, found 82.7% rated Good or Outstanding and identified substantial geographic variation. Those findings are useful for understanding the environment around adult social care training.
They are not evidence that training alone determines care quality, nor do they support guaranteed claims about improving CQC ratings. For training providers, the opportunity is to use regulatory data as one input into needs analysis, then build learning that is relevant to actual roles, supported by employers and assessed honestly. That approach respects both the report and the complexity of delivering high-quality care.
Sources: High Speed Training, CQC Ratings Report: A state of play analysis of care home ratings in England, 2026; Care Quality Commission, The state of health care and adult social care in England 2024/25, published 24 October 2025; Care Appointments, New report shows the areas of England with the highest care home ratings, 22 April 2026.