Dementia Quality Dashboards: KPIs That Actually Improve Care
Dementia services increasingly need to demonstrate grip on quality, risk and outcomes using consistent data, not just narrative. A well-designed outcomes, evidence and quality assurance approach supports governance oversight and evidences improvement, while alignment with dementia service models ensures KPIs reflect how care is actually delivered. This article explains how to build a dementia quality dashboard that improves care, supports staff, and stands up to commissioner and inspector scrutiny.
Why many dashboards fail in dementia services
Dashboards often fail because they are:
- Too activity-focused: tracking training completed or visits done without showing impact.
- Too generic: using one-size KPIs that miss dementia-specific risk and lived experience.
- Not action-led: data is collected but does not trigger review, escalation or improvement.
A dementia dashboard should support a simple question: what is changing, why, and what are we doing about it?
Design principles for a dementia quality dashboard
Keep it balanced: safety, experience, effectiveness, workforce
A balanced dashboard usually includes:
- Safety: falls severity, medication incidents, safeguarding concerns, infection outbreaks.
- Experience: complaints themes, compliments, engagement indicators, family feedback.
- Effectiveness: escalation outcomes, hospital admissions, distress trends, goal progress.
- Workforce: supervision quality, staffing stability, competence, agency usage.
Use trend and threshold logic
Dashboards are most useful when they show trends over time and include thresholds that trigger review. This avoids “data for data’s sake” and supports operational grip.
What KPIs are meaningful in dementia care
Meaningful dementia KPIs focus on risk, stability and lived experience. Examples include:
- Distress indicators: frequency and duration of distress episodes (with triggers and recovery).
- Falls outcomes: severity, location, time patterns, and contributing factors.
- Unplanned admissions: reason, avoidability review and escalation steps taken.
- Restrictive practice use: type, justification, review compliance and reduction plans.
- Safeguarding signals: concerns raised, time to action, outcomes and learning themes.
Operational example 1: Dashboard reveals a “hidden” distress pattern
Context: A service believed distress was “random” and resident-specific, with no clear pattern.
Support approach: Leaders created a KPI set: number of distress episodes per week, average duration, and top triggers by time of day.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff recorded distress episodes in a consistent format (time, trigger, response, recovery time). The shift lead reviewed logs daily and the manager reviewed weekly trends.
How effectiveness is evidenced: The dashboard identified a strong spike around shift handover and pre-meal routines. The service redesigned handover (quiet zone, staggered tasks, identified “known triggers”) and within four weeks incidents and duration reduced. Staff feedback and family comments supported the change.
Operational example 2: Falls KPI drives targeted prevention rather than blanket restrictions
Context: Falls numbers increased, and staff responded by restricting mobility, which affected quality of life.
Support approach: The dashboard separated falls frequency from falls severity and added a “falls context” audit (time, location, footwear, hydration, medication changes).
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff completed a short post-fall review within 24 hours. The service added hydration prompts, adjusted evening lighting, introduced a footwear check at morning support, and reviewed medicines with clinical partners where appropriate.
How effectiveness is evidenced: While minor falls still occurred, severity reduced and “repeat fallers” stabilised. The service could evidence proportionate risk management and avoided blanket restrictions by demonstrating targeted learning and improvement.
Operational example 3: Supervision quality KPI improves practice competence
Context: Supervision was happening, but audits showed inconsistent recording and variable dementia practice.
Support approach: Leaders introduced a KPI on supervision quality: proportion of supervisions that included case reflection, learning actions and competence discussion.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Supervisors used a structured supervision template linked to live practice issues (distress management, communication approaches, medication prompts, capacity considerations). Action points were tracked and revisited.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Practice audits improved, staff confidence increased, and repeat issues reduced. The dashboard showed a rise in “reflective supervision compliance” alongside reduced incident themes.
Governance and assurance mechanisms that make dashboards credible
Dashboards become defensible when there is clear governance around them:
- Monthly quality meeting: dashboard review with documented actions and owners.
- Escalation routes: thresholds trigger a risk review or safeguarding escalation.
- Audit triangulation: dashboard trends are tested through observation, record audit and feedback.
- Board oversight: leaders can evidence how information flows from frontline to governance.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioners expect providers to evidence performance and improvement over time, with dashboards that demonstrate grip on risk, service stability, escalation and value.
Regulator / inspector expectation (CQC)
CQC expects effective governance and oversight, with evidence that data informs learning and change, and that improvements are sustained and embedded in day-to-day practice.
How to present dementia dashboards in tenders and inspections
Dashboards are strongest when presented with short “what it means” commentary:
- What changed and why it matters.
- What action was taken.
- What impact is now evidenced.
This turns a dashboard from a reporting tool into credible evidence of operational maturity.