Well-led · KLOE 6
Partnerships and communities
Is the service working effectively with its population and partners to deliver high quality care and treatment that meet the diverse needs of the people who use them?
CQC wording, mental health care draft, pages 72 to 75.
Draft, not the current assessment framework
CQC's mental health care draft, published March 2026. The current quality statements remain in use.
CQC draft scope
What this proposed KLOE covers
Scope of this key line of enquiry and topic areas include:
- Sharing good practice and learning
- Integration of health and social care
- Partnership and collaborative working
- Involvement and co-production
- Neighbourhood collaborative working
- Inclusive community engagement
How would this apply to your service?
The draft applies one framework across mental health care, but useful evidence depends on your service and people.
Source: CQC, Mental health care assessment framework, draft, 19 March 2026, pages 72 to 75. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
CQC draft rating characteristics
How the draft describes each rating
These are CQC's draft characteristics. CQC says rating characteristics guide judgements, they are not a mechanical checklist.
Outstanding
- The service takes a lead role to improve the broader health of its population and tackles health inequalities across the local system at neighbourhood level, regionally or nationally.
- Collaborative working is solidly part of practice and outcomes-focused at every level, with co-designed services that are seamlessly integrated and responsive to evolving population needs. As a result, people receive the right care, in the right place at the right time and there is notable evidence of improvements for under-served communities as a result.
- Staff and leaders demonstrate sustained relationships within the local system at neighbourhood level and beyond. They foster a culture of trust and respect, enabling dialogue and working collaboratively to solve problems.
- People who use services, staff and local stakeholders are meaningfully involved as equal partners in the design, delivery, and evaluation of services. Where applicable, board members are appointed to oversee how well these partnerships are working at executive level.
- Co-production is embedded in the service culture, with diverse voices actively shaping decisions. Engagement is inclusive, culturally sensitive, non-discriminatory and sustained.
- Feedback from people who use services, the public and stakeholders is welcomed and seen as a vital way of holding services to account. Leaders use engagement, data and research effectively, actively seek feedback, respond transparently, and use challenge to drive improvement and innovation.
- Where appropriate, the service demonstrates shared accountability with partners, which involves aligned priorities, joint governance and collective management of risk. Focus is on improving experience and outcomes for local populations and communities, not solely on the service’s l interests.
- Leaders champion co-production and co-design of the service with people who have lived experience across all areas of the service, and they maintain strong partnerships across other organisations, agencies and sectors in the system.
Good
- The service openly shares good practice and learning across the system at neighbourhood level, regionally or nationally.
- Staff and leaders work collaboratively with all relevant stakeholders and agencies to deliver joined-up services that meet the diverse needs of the population served. This is delivering improvements for under-served communities.
- Staff and leaders support good interpersonal relationships across partnerships. They communicate openly, build trust and encourage working collaboratively.
- People and those close to them, staff and local stakeholders are regularly involved in shaping the design and delivery of the service. Their views and experiences are actively sought and used to inform decisions. Culturally sensitive and non-discriminatory co-production is encouraged and includes diverse voices through inclusive engagement approaches.
- Feedback from people and those close to them, the public, and stakeholders is responded to appropriately, and there is a clear commitment to accountability and continuous improvement. People from different backgrounds feel they are equally listened to and represented.
Requires improvement
- The service shares good practice and learning inconsistently or only within limited internal circles. Opportunities to contribute to wider system learning are missed, and there is limited evidence of proactive engagement with external partners and communities.
- Staff and leaders demonstrate limited or inconsistent relationships across partnerships. Relationship building is sporadic or reactive, leading to missed opportunities for working collaboratively.
- Staff and leaders engage with external stakeholders and agencies inconsistently or superficially. Working collaboratively is limited in scope or depth, and interdependencies are not fully recognised or used. People from different backgrounds report this has a negative impact on their experience of care and their outcomes.
- There is a limited or inconsistent approach to seeking the views of people who use services, staff and local stakeholders. Engagement is limited in reach or depth and may not reflect the diversity of the local population. Opportunities for co-production are missed or under-developed and there is little evidence that feedback meaningfully influences decisions, including at board level.
- Challenge from people who use services, the public, or stakeholders is inconsistently acknowledged or acted on. Feedback mechanisms may exist but are under-used or lack transparency. People from different backgrounds feel they are responded to differently and their care is affected.
Inadequate
- The service does not share good practice or learning beyond its own service. There is little or no evidence of engagement with the wider system, and opportunities to contribute to collective improvement are routinely overlooked.
- Staff and leaders do not actively support interpersonal relationships across partnerships. Communication is poor or absent. This undermines joint working, erodes trust and impedes progress across the system.
- Staff and leaders do not work collaboratively meaningfully with external stakeholders or agencies. There is little or no recognition of interdependencies, and services operate in isolation.
- People who use services, staff, and stakeholders are not meaningfully involved in designing or delivering the service. Engagement is minimal or absent. There is no clear approach to co-production, and services are developed without input from those they affect. Board level oversight of this is ineffective or absent completely. Challenge from people who use services, the public, or stakeholders is discouraged, ignored, or met with defensiveness. There are limited mechanisms to give feedback, and accountability is weak or absent. People from different backgrounds are responded to differently and are experiencing poor care experiences and outcomes as a result.
Want to know how your service would fare?
Book a mock inspection run against the draft KLOEs, or call 020 8090 5346 to speak to one of our experts.