The Homesplace Grade · methodology
One grade, A to E.
Every input sourced.
Like an EPC for a property, the grade reflects the official assessment, not the brochure. It is computed by a versioned, published formula from official regulators' records alone — Care Quality Commission inspections, enforcement and registration records, plus Food Standards Agency hygiene ratings. This page documents every weight, threshold and penalty.
- Model version
- 1.3.0
- Inputs
- CQC + FSA
- Recomputed
- Nightly
The bands
The grade is a score out of 100, banded A to E, with the direction of travel shown alongside (improving ↗, stable →, declining ↘).
How the score is built
Every grade starts from the regulator's own ratings, then six published adjustments are applied in order. Each one is bounded, so no single factor can swing a record on its own.
Weighted ratings base
The starting score is a weighted average of the five CQC key questions at the current inspection. Safe and Well-led are weighted highest because they are the strongest predictors of harm and of decline respectively.
- Safe · Well-led ×25%
- Effective · Caring · Responsive ×16.7%
Trajectory
Direction of travel is read across the last four inspections. Improvement that has been held earns credit; a recent decline costs more than an old one. Improvement already reflected in the current ratings earns no double credit.
- Sustained recovery +6
- Held at Good+ +1 / inspection (max +3)
- Decline in window −8
Inspection recency
Recency cuts both ways around the national average gap between inspections (22 months). A recently inspected Good-or-better record earns a freshness credit — full within about two months, tapering to nothing at the average gap. Past the gap the ratings go stale and the score decays per additional month; at roughly 1.5× the gap, staleness also surfaces as a watch point.
- +0.3 / month under the average gap (Good+ only)
- Recency credit capped +6
- −0.2 / month past the gap
- Decay capped −10
Enforcement
Each enforcement action published in the last three years carries a penalty weighted by recency — a notice last month carries close to its full weight, one from nearly three years ago close to none.
- Up to −8 per action, recency-weighted
- Combined cap −20
Leadership churn
Frequent registered-manager change is a leading indicator of declining quality, so repeated turnover within the recent window carries a measured penalty.
- −2 per change (last 3 years)
- Capped at −6
Food hygiene
Where the premises can be matched to a Food Standards Agency hygiene rating, a second regulator's view is folded in: a strong kitchen nudges the score up, a failing one down. It is a bounded, secondary signal and never overrides the CQC base; homes with no confident match are unaffected.
- FHRS 5 +2 · 4 +1 · 3 neutral
- FHRS 2 −2 · 1 −4 · 0 −6
- No match: no effect
Ratings & weights
The weighted base draws on the five CQC key questions. Each rating converts to points before the weights above are applied.
Key-question weight
Rating → points
Versioning & audit
Every stored grade records the model version and the full input snapshot it was computed from, so any grade can be re-derived and audited later. When the formula changes, the version number changes and this page changes with it. Grades are recomputed nightly for any service whose record moved.
Services with no published ratings yet hold a neutral 50 until their first inspection is on record, clearly explained on their page.
What the grade is not
The grade does not use operator-supplied content, reviews, photos, or anything a provider can write or buy. Review scores from other sites are shown on record pages for context only, labelled, and weighted below regulator evidence — they never enter the grade.