Business continuity governance in adult social care: board accountability and assurance
Business continuity in adult social care is often misunderstood as a technical or operational issue, when in reality it is primarily a governance responsibility. Serious service disruption rarely results from a lack of written plans, but from unclear accountability, weak oversight and poor escalation routes when risks emerge. Within business continuity governance and accountability, boards must be able to demonstrate that continuity risks are understood, owned and actively managed. This is particularly critical where continuity commitments are made within business continuity assurances in tenders, which commissioners increasingly scrutinise during delivery.
Why business continuity is a board-level responsibility
Business continuity failures expose people to harm, disrupt regulated services and place providers at serious regulatory and contractual risk. For this reason, continuity governance cannot sit solely with operational managers. Boards are responsible for ensuring that:
- Continuity risks are identified and reviewed at a strategic level.
- Roles and decision-making authority are clearly defined.
- Escalation routes are understood and used in practice.
- Continuity plans are realistic and tested against real delivery conditions.
Without this oversight, continuity arrangements quickly become paper exercises rather than live risk controls.
Key governance roles in business continuity
Clear role definition is essential. Effective governance usually includes:
- Board ownership: ultimate accountability for continuity risk and organisational resilience.
- Executive lead: responsible for implementation, assurance and reporting.
- Operational leads: responsible for local continuity actions and escalation.
- Quality and safeguarding oversight: ensuring continuity decisions protect people and rights.
Each role must be documented and understood, particularly during incidents when rapid decisions are required.
Operational example 1: board oversight preventing service collapse
Context: A provider experiences repeated short-term staffing crises across several services. Local managers manage each incident, but patterns are not escalated.
Support approach: The board introduces a standing business continuity agenda item and requires trend reporting.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Data on agency use, sickness, overtime and near-miss incidents is reviewed quarterly. When thresholds are breached, the executive lead triggers a continuity review, reallocating resources and approving temporary stabilisation funding.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Reduced emergency escalations, fewer safeguarding alerts linked to staffing instability, and documented board challenge demonstrate active governance.
Operational example 2: accountability during infrastructure failure
Context: A supported living scheme experiences repeated power outages affecting assistive technology and safety systems.
Support approach: Business continuity accountability is clarified between property, operations and executive leadership.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The executive lead authorises temporary mitigation (backup power, additional overnight staffing), while the board approves capital investment to address root causes. Escalation routes are clear and rapid.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Incident frequency reduces, service user safety is maintained, and inspection evidence shows proactive leadership.
Operational example 3: governance during multi-service disruption
Context: Extreme weather disrupts transport and staffing across multiple services simultaneously.
Support approach: A pre-defined governance structure activates a strategic continuity group.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Decision-making authority is delegated clearly. Local managers focus on delivery, while senior leaders manage cross-service prioritisation, commissioner communication and workforce redeployment.
How effectiveness is evidenced: No service closures occur, commissioner feedback is positive, and post-incident review identifies learning.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioners expect business continuity to be governed, not improvised. They look for clear accountability, board oversight, and evidence that continuity commitments made in contracts are actively monitored and delivered.
Regulator and inspector expectation (CQC)
CQC expects providers to be well-led and resilient. Inspectors assess whether leadership understands continuity risks, whether escalation works in practice, and whether disruption compromises safety, dignity or rights.
Governance and assurance mechanisms
- Board-level ownership of continuity risk registers.
- Named executive accountability with authority to act.
- Defined escalation thresholds and response routes.
- Post-incident reviews reported to the board.
- Evidence linking continuity decisions to safeguarding outcomes.
What good looks like
Strong business continuity governance is visible through calm decision-making during disruption, clear accountability and early intervention. Boards that treat continuity as a core governance responsibility protect people, services and organisational reputation.