Donate - InclusiveAIHub

Welcome to your CQC-Aligned AI Inclusion Readiness Assessment

Name

Email

Q1: Does your organisation have a formal AI Governance, Ethics, or Inclusion Policy aligned with CQC expectations?

No, we have not considered this yet.

Informal internal discussions only

Draft policy under development

Formal board-approved policy reviewed annually

Q2: How involved is senior leadership in AI procurement and oversight decisions?

AI decisions are delegated entirely to IT or vendors

Leadership reviews only financial implications

Leadership considers operational impact but not bias/inclusion risks

Senior leaders proactively assess governance, inclusion, and risk impact

Q3: Is there a clearly designated AI Governance Lead or oversight structure?

No designated responsibility

AI oversight is informal and ad hoc

A committee exists but lacks clear authority

A named lead or committee has authority to pause or reject unsafe AI systems

Q4: What percentage of staff has received AI literacy or responsible AI training?

0% – No structured training

Under 25% – Limited to technical roles

25–75% – Most operational staff trained

75%+ – Organisation-wide structured training programme

Q5: How are staff supported to challenge AI outputs safely?

No guidance exists.

Informal guidance only.

Staff are encouraged to question outputs, but no reporting pathway exists.

Formal escalation process with documented review and feedback loop

Q6: How does your organisation manage accountability when AI influences care decisions?

Accountability is unclear.

Responsibility defaults to frontline staff

Shared accountability, but not formally documented.

Clear documented accountability framework aligned to CQC “Well-Led” expectations.

Q7: Do you assess AI systems for demographic bias (age, ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic status)?

No assessment conducted.

We rely solely on vendor assurances.

Occasional internal checks.

Regular documented bias and fairness audits.

Q8: How are AI-generated clinical or care recommendations verified?

We assume the system is accurate.

Staff correct errors reactively.

Informal double-checking by experienced staff.

Mandatory “Human-in-the-Loop” verification before care decisions.

Q9: Are AI-generated policies or care documentation reviewed for person-centred alignment?

Not reviewed separately from human-written content.

Basic proofreading only.

Reviewed for tone but not person-centred compliance.

Reviewed for person-centred language, regulatory alignment, and contextual accuracy.

Q10: How does your AI governance align with CQC’s “Smarter Regulation” model?

We are unfamiliar with the model.

Aware but no structured alignment.

Some digital oversight initiatives in place.

AI governance integrated into data-driven continuous improvement processes.

Q11: How is AI-related risk recorded and monitored?

Not recorded formally.

Documented only after incidents.

Logged but not regularly reviewed.

AI risks integrated into organisational risk register and reviewed at board level.

Q12: Could your organisation confidently evidence safe, inclusive AI use during a CQC inspection?

No, documentation is insufficient.

Possibly, but evidence is fragmented.

We could demonstrate partial compliance.

Yes, with structured documentation and governance evidence.