CQC says many larger providers still behind on learning disability training

The regulator now treats this training as a safety issue

A year after the Oliver McGowan Code of Practice was published, CQC says many larger organisations still have significant work to do (opens in a new tab) to get their staff trained in learning disability and autism. NHS trusts and primary care providers are named too.

CQC puts that next to a stark figure. Its review cites the July 2026 LeDeR report, which found that among adults with a learning disability who had a review (opens in a new tab), 39.0% of deaths were classed as avoidable, against 21.1% for the general adult population, using 2024 data.

That moves the question for care groups out of the training budget and into safety. CQC argues that outcomes are better where staff are trained and skilled.

Size has not put the larger organisations ahead. CQC names them among those with significant work still to do, alongside NHS trusts and primary care.

The duty already applies in England

The Health and Care Act 2022 requires CQC-registered providers to give staff learning disability and autism training (opens in a new tab) "appropriate to the person's role". The Code sets out how providers are expected to meet it. Residential and nursing care homes are in scope alongside NHS and independent health providers.

CQC's review, published on 14 September 2026, checks progress on a legal duty that already applies. It brings in no new rule. It covers England only: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate regulators.

Uneven, with no count of the care homes behind

CQC describes progress as uneven. Some providers are innovating. But the review gives no national percentage and no count of providers falling short, so the share of care homes behind is not known.

That cuts both ways. Small homes are not named among those behind, but the review does not say they are on track either. A large group cannot assume its homes are fine, and commissioners get no figure here for the homes they commission.

The death figures cover all reviewed deaths across health and social care. They are not split by whether staff had the training, so they make CQC's case for the requirement rather than measure what the gap costs.

CQC's best examples are about the people, not the course

CQC points to providers that have added individualised chapters to staff training (opens in a new tab) covering the specific people staff support. It also cites health providers that have built bespoke training around the Code to fit their own settings.

That gives a registered manager a concrete question to put to the training record. Does it say anything about the people this team actually supports, or only about learning disability and autism in general? The law's test is training appropriate to the role.

In a group running many homes, that test plays out home by home and job by job. CQC has put the training gap and the death figures in the same review. Larger groups, named among those behind, now face a plain question: which side of "uneven" do their homes sit on, and could they show it?