Using Quality Dashboards and KPIs to Strengthen Board Assurance in Adult Social Care
Boards increasingly rely on dashboards and KPIs to understand whether services are safe, effective and well-led. However, poorly designed dashboards can obscure risk rather than illuminate it. Inspectors and commissioners expect assurance and governance arrangements that translate frontline activity into meaningful intelligence, aligned with recognised quality standards and frameworks rather than generic performance reporting.
This article explores how to design and use quality dashboards that genuinely strengthen board assurance in adult social care.
Why dashboards often fail to provide assurance
Common dashboard weaknesses include:
- Over-reliance on volume metrics without context
- Lagging indicators that identify harm after it has occurred
- Inconsistent definitions across services
- Green-heavy reports that discourage challenge
- No clear link between metrics and action
Boards should be able to ask not only “what are the numbers?” but “what do these numbers tell us about risk, quality and experience right now?”
Principles of an effective board-level quality dashboard
Strong dashboards typically:
- Balance outcomes, process and assurance indicators
- Show trends over time, not just snapshots
- Include narrative analysis alongside data
- Highlight exceptions and emerging risks
- Link directly to improvement actions and assurance activity
The goal is informed challenge, not passive reporting.
Operational Example 1: Redesigning a safeguarding dashboard for insight
Context: A provider presented monthly safeguarding totals to the board. While numbers appeared stable, inspectors later identified delays in escalation and inconsistent follow-up.
Support approach: The dashboard was redesigned to include escalation timeliness, repeat concerns by service, and proportion of cases closed with documented learning.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Service managers logged safeguarding concerns with time stamps for initial identification, management review and statutory notification. A central team validated data weekly. The dashboard highlighted services with repeated delays or clustering of concerns, triggering focused assurance visits.
How effectiveness was evidenced: Board minutes recorded challenge and targeted actions. Subsequent audits showed improved escalation compliance and clearer evidence of learning embedded at service level.
Choosing KPIs that reflect real risk and quality
Effective KPIs are those that prompt curiosity and action. Examples include:
- Repeat incidents per individual or service
- Time from incident to review completion
- Restrictive practice rate per 1,000 support hours
- Supervision completion with quality sampling
- Audit repeat-finding rates
Boards should be cautious of KPIs that are easy to collect but offer limited assurance.
Operational Example 2: Using restrictive practice KPIs to drive reduction
Context: A supported living provider reported restraint counts monthly but saw little reduction over time.
Support approach: The provider introduced KPIs linking restrictive practice to staffing stability, training completion and PBS plan reviews.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Data was triangulated monthly. Where restrictive practice increased, managers reviewed rotas, staff confidence and environmental factors. Action plans focused on proactive strategies rather than punitive responses.
How effectiveness was evidenced: Board dashboards showed a downward trend in restrictive interventions alongside improved staff retention and PBS review compliance.
Dashboards as a tool for board challenge
Dashboards should enable boards to:
- Ask why performance varies between services
- Test whether improvements are sustained
- Understand where assurance activity should focus
- Link risk appetite to operational reality
Boards should avoid dashboards that discourage questioning by presenting overly simplified “RAG-rated” views without explanation.
Operational Example 3: Linking dashboard intelligence to assurance visits
Context: A multi-region provider struggled to prioritise internal quality visits effectively.
Support approach: Dashboard intelligence was used to trigger risk-based assurance visits rather than fixed schedules.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Services showing rising incident trends, poor audit scores or supervision gaps were prioritised. Visit findings were fed back into dashboard metrics and action trackers.
How effectiveness was evidenced: The provider demonstrated targeted use of resources, improved compliance and clearer board oversight of risk.
Commissioner and regulator expectations
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect providers to understand their own performance and risk profile, using data to drive improvement rather than retrospective reporting.
Regulator / inspector expectation (CQC): CQC expects governance systems that identify risk early, support learning and provide accurate oversight of quality and safety.
Conclusion
Quality dashboards and KPIs are powerful governance tools when designed for insight, challenge and action. Providers that invest in meaningful metrics and narrative analysis give boards confidence that assurance reflects reality and supports continuous improvement.