Contents
- Introduction
- Our commitment
- Summary
- Collecting equality monitoring data
- Indicator 1
- Indicator 2
- Indicator 3
- Indicator 4a
- Indicator 4b
- Indicator 5
- Indicator 6
- Indicator 7
- Indicator 8
- Indicator 9a
- Indicator 9b
- Indicator 10
- Appendix: Workforce Disability Equality Standard indicators
Introduction
In this report for 2025, we report against the 10 specific indicators in the Workforce Disability Equality Standards (WDES). They enable us to compare the experiences of disabled colleagues and colleagues who are not disabled. We do this so we can develop how we ensure equitable outcomes for all colleagues.
Our commitment
We publish this report to be transparent and show our commitment to providing a fair and inclusive environment for our disabled colleagues.
Summary
Representation
A continued area of focus in our 2024 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy is improving our representation, so we reflect the labour market representation for disabled people.
- The overall representation of disabled colleagues at CQC has increased from 12.4% in 2024 to 15.4% in 2025. The total number of disabled colleagues employed at the time of the report is 496, an increase of 119 from 2024.
Recruitment
A continued area of focus in our 2024 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy is to ensure there are no adverse impacts at each stage of the recruitment process.
- Disabled candidates were slightly more likely to be appointed from shortlisting compared with candidates who are not disabled, which continues the trend from 2023 to 2024.
Inclusion
Activity to improve inclusion is a key focus in our 2024 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy. We have been working to improve our adjustments offer since our last report.
- Disabled respondents to the June 2025 Pulse Survey remain more likely than respondents who are not disabled to have experienced bullying, harassment, or abuse from other colleagues.
- The majority of disabled respondents reported that they have received the workplace adjustments they need (84%), improving from the January/February 2024 People Survey.
Collecting equality monitoring data
We use data about our people to develop this report, which is taken from the Electronic Staff Record (ESR).
Using this data, we show the total number of people employed in CQC as at 31 March 2025 and the proportion of colleagues who have shared information regarding their disability status.
Figure 1: Proportion of disabled colleagues in CQC, 31 March 2025
| Total number of colleagues | 3,225 |
|---|---|
| Proportion of disabled colleagues employed in CQC | 15.4% |
| Proportion of all colleagues who have shared their disability status | 94.7% |
- A total of 496 disabled colleagues were employed at 31 March 2025, an increase of 119 compared with 2024.
- This has resulted in a significant increase to the overall representation figure from 12.4% to 15.4%.
In this report, we also use data from our June 2025 Pulse Survey of colleagues and comparison data from our January/February 2024 People Survey.
Figure 2: Disabled colleagues by People Survey 2024 and Pulse Survey 2025
| Respondents | People Survey 2024: count | People Survey 2024: % of total | Pulse Survey 2025: count | Pulse Survey 2025: % of total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disabled | 530 | 23.3% | 654 | 30.8% |
| Not disabled | 1,545 | 67.8% | 1324 | 62.4% |
| Prefer not to say | 203 | 8.9% | 143 | 6.7% |
| Total | 2,278 | 100% | 2,121 | 100% |
Indicator 1
Indicator 1 requires that we report the percentage of disabled colleagues in each of the NHS Agenda for Change (AfC) Bands and for very senior managers (VSMs), including executive Board members, compared with the percentage of colleagues in the overall workforce.
CQC’s pay and grading framework is not always directly comparable with the Agenda for Change (AfC) bands. However, for comparison, we provide broad equivalents between them in figure 3 (see the appendix for more information).
Figure 3: Disabled colleagues by Agenda for Change bands and executive grades, 31 March 2024 and 31 March 2025
| Category | Not disabled 2025 | % change from 2024 | Disabled 2025 | % change from 2024 | Not stated | % change from 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster 4 (executive grades) | 81.1% | -1.7% | 13.3% | +3.9% | 5.6% | -2.2% |
| Cluster 3 (Grades A, B) | 79.5% | -3% | 15.8% | +3.2% | 4.8% | -0.3% |
| Cluster 2 (Grades C, D, E) | 79% | -1.9% | 15.5% | +3% | 5.5% | -1% |
| Cluster 1 (Grade F) | 78.2% | +0.3% | 15.4% | -0.2% | 6.4% | -0.1% |
| Overall total | 79.3% | -2.6% | 15.4% | +2.9% | 5.3% | -0.3% |
What our data is telling us:
- Using the overall representation figure of 15.4%, disabled colleagues are proportionately represented across 3 of the 4 clusters (groups of grades). Representation in clusters 3 (grades A and B), 2 (grades C, D and E) and 1 (grade F) is equal to or above the overall figure (15.4% to 15.8%). Cluster 4 (executive grades) is the only area that is under-represented (13.3%).
- Compared with the previous year, there is increased representation in all clusters except Cluster 1 (grade F), which saw a minor decrease of less than 1 percentage point.
- At the individual grade level, there is slight over-representation in grades E (17.6%) and D (16.7%), and under-representation in executive grades (13.3%) and grade C (13.8%). Increases were seen in grade E (up 6.7%), the executive grades (up 3.9%), and grade B (up 8.4%). The only small decrease was in grade F, down 0.2%.
Indicator 2
Indicator 2 requires that we calculate the relative likelihood of candidates who are not disabled compared with disabled candidates being appointed to a role from shortlisting across all posts.
- A relative likelihood of 1 indicates that there is no difference. For example, applicants who are not disabled are equally as likely to be appointed from shortlisting as disabled applicants.
- A relative likelihood above 1 indicates that applicants who are not disabled are more likely to be appointed from shortlisting compared with disabled applicants. For example, a likelihood ratio of 2 indicates that applicants who are not disabled are twice (2 times) as likely to be appointed from shortlisting as disabled applicants.
- A relative likelihood below 1 indicates applicants who are not disabled are less likely to be appointed from shortlisting compared with disabled applicants. For example, a likelihood ratio of 0.5 indicates applicants who are not disabled are half (0.5 times) as likely to be appointed from shortlisting as disabled applicants.
Figure 4: Appointments from shortlisting, 2023/24 and 2024/25
| Category | Not disabled 2023/2024 | Disabled 2023/2024 | Not disabled 2024/2025 | Disabled 2024/2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number shortlisted | 2,133 | 418 | 2,444 | 583 |
| Number appointed | 546 | 95 | 472 | 141 |
| Relative likelihood of being appointed from shortlisting | 0.256 | 0.227 | 0.193 | 0.242 |
Relative likelihood of candidates who are not disabled compared with disabled candidates being appointed from shortlisting across all posts:
- 2024: 1.13
- 2025: 0.80
Note: Data covers the period 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 and 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled candidates were slightly more likely to be appointed from shortlisting compared with candidates who are not disabled during 2024/25.
- 18% of applications were from disabled candidates, up from 15% in 2023/24.
- The proportion of disabled candidates appointed was 21%, up from 14% in 2023/24. The equivalent figures for candidates who are not disabled were 74% and 69% respectively.
Indicator 3
Indicator 3 requires that we calculate the relative likelihood of disabled colleagues compared with colleagues who are not disabled entering the formal capability process (on the grounds of performance and not ill health). This indicator is based on a 2-year rolling average.
Figure 5: Likelihood of entering formal capability process, 2023/24
| Category | Not disabled 2023/2024* | Disabled 2023/2024* | Not disabled 2023* | Disabled 2023* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of colleagues in workforce (average) | 2,482 | 402 | 2,547 | 351 |
| Number of colleagues entering the formal capability process | 1.5 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Likelihood entering the formal capability process | 0.0006 | 0 | 0.0008 | 0 |
Relative likelihood of disabled colleagues entering process compared with colleagues who are not disabled:
- 2024: 0
- 2023: 0
*Note: Data is based on a 2-year rolling average of the reporting year (1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024) and the previous year (1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023).
What our data is telling us:
- Unable to provide this data for 2025 based on data identification.
Indicator 4a
Indicator 4a concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues compared with colleagues who are not disabled reported experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse, in the last 12 months, from either:
- patients, relatives or the public
- managers
- other colleagues.
This indicator is measured by 2 separate questions asked in our People Surveys, which relate to the public and people using services, and to other CQC colleagues, which combines ‘managers’ and ‘other colleagues. We used data from our June 2025 Pulse Survey and compared with data from our January/February 2024 People Survey (figures 6 and 7).
Question text: “In the last 12 months, I have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work from people other than CQC colleagues. For example, members of the public and people who use services”
Figure 6: Harassment, bullying or abuse from patients, relatives or the public, 2024 and 2025
| 2024 People Survey | 2025 Pulse Survey | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disabled | 14.2% | 14.1% | -0.1% |
| Not disabled | 8.3% | 7.6% | -0.7% |
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents remain more likely than respondents who are not disabled to have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse from people other than colleagues (14.1% compared with 7.6%).
Question text: "In the last 12 months, I have experienced bullying, harassment or abuse from other CQC colleagues"
Figure 7: Harassment, bullying or abuse from other CQC colleagues, 2024 and 2025
| 2024 People Survey | 2025 Pulse Survey | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disabled | 18.7% | 19.4% | +0.7% |
| Not disabled | 8.7% | 10.8% | +2.1% |
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents still remain more likely than respondents who are not disabled to have experienced bullying, harassment, or abuse from colleagues (19.4% compared with 10.8%).
- The figure for disabled colleagues increased by less than 1 percentage point, whereas the figure for respondents who are not disabled was up by 2 percentage points.
Indicator 4b
Indicator 4b concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues compared with colleagues who are not disabled who said they reported the last time they experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work, from people other than CQC colleagues.
This is measured by 2 separate questions asked in our People Surveys.
We used data from our June 2025 Pulse Survey and compared with data from our January/February 2024 People Survey (figures 8 and 9).
Question text: “Have you reported the bullying/harassment?”
[In response to "In the last 12 months, I have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work from people other than CQC colleagues. For example, members of the public and people who use services"]
Figure 8: Reported harassment, bullying or abuse from patients, relatives or the public, 2024 and 2025
| 2024 People Survey | 2025 Pulse Survey | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disabled | 57.4% | 50% | -7.4% |
| Not disabled | 57.1% | 50.5% | -6.6% |
What our data is telling us:
- There is no difference between disabled respondents and respondents who are not disabled in reporting bullying, harassment, or abuse from people other than colleagues, with both at 50%.
- However, the percentage of colleagues reporting this in both groups has reduced by 7 percentage points, from 2024.
Question text: "Have you reported the bullying/harassment?"
[In response to, "In the last 12 months, I have experienced bullying, harassment or abuse from other CQC colleagues"]
Figure 9: Reported harassment, bullying or abuse from other CQC colleagues, 2024 and 2025
| 2024 People Survey | 2025 Pulse Survey | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disabled | 51.5% | 58.3% | +6.8% |
| Not disabled | 45.2% | 51% | +5.8% |
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents are more likely to report unacceptable behaviour from colleagues than respondents who are not disabled (58% compared with 51%).
- Both figures have increased on 2024, by 7 and 6 percentage points respectively.
Indicator 5
Indicator 5 concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues compared with colleagues who are not disabled who believe that CQC provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion.
We used data from our June 2025 Pulse Survey and compared with data from our January/February 2024 People Survey to measure this (figure 10).
Question text: “I believe our organisation provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion”
Figure 10: Perception of equal opportunities for career progression or promotion, 2024 and 2025
| 2024 People Survey | 2025 Pulse Survey | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disabled | 35.5% | 27.8% | -7.7% |
| Not disabled | 46.9% | 40.3% | -6.6% |
What our data is telling us:
- Respondents who are not disabled gave the most positive responses to this statement (40%) than disabled respondents (28%) and a large gap (12.5%) remains between the two groups.
- The result for both groups has declined, with the difference for disabled colleagues decreasing by 8 percentage points, and by 7 percentage points for colleagues who are not disabled.
Indicator 6
Indicator 6 concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues reporting that they have felt pressure from their manager to come to work, despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties.
We used data from our January/February 2024 People Survey and compared with data from our June 2025 Pulse Survey to measure this (figure 11).
This survey question was visible to those respondents who answered, ‘yes’ or ‘prefer not say’ to “Do you consider yourself to have a disability/long term health condition?”.
Question text: “Have you felt pressure from your manager to come to work?”
[If 'Yes to: "In the last 3 months have you ever come to work despite not feeling well enough to perform your duties?"]
Figure 11: Feeling pressure from manager to work when not feeling well enough, 2024 and 2025
| 2024 People Survey | 2025 Pulse Survey | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disabled | 11.2% | 11.3% | +0.1% |
What our data is telling us:
- There has been no change to the proportion of disabled respondents feeling pressure from their line manager to come to work despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties.
Indicator 7
Indicator 7 concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues compared with colleagues who are not disabled reporting that they are satisfied with the extent to which their organisation values their work.
We use data from our January/February 2024 People Survey and compare with our June 2025 Pulse Survey (figure 12).
Question text: "I feel valued for the work I do"
Figure 12: Feeling valued for work, 2024 and 2025
| 2024 People Survey | 2025 Pulse Survey | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disabled | 44% | 46.3% | +2.4% |
| Not disabled | 52.6% | 58.3% | +5.7% |
What our data is telling us:
- There has been a small increase in the proportion of disabled respondents who feel valued for the work they do.
- A large gap (12%) remains between disabled respondents (46%) and those who are not disabled (58%), and this has widened this year.
Indicator 8
Indicator 8 concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues saying that their employer has made adequate adjustment(s) to enable them to carry out their work.
We use data from our January/February 2024 People Survey and compare with our June 2025 Pulse Survey (figure 12).
Question text: “Have appropriate workplace adjustments been made to enable you to carry out your work?”
Figure 13: Adequate adjustments for disabled colleagues, 2024 and 2025
| 2024 People Survey | 2025 Pulse Survey | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disabled | 81% | 83.8% | +2.7% |
What our data is telling us:
- The vast majority of disabled respondents report that they have received the workplace adjustments they need (84%), an improvement of 3 percentage points from 2024.
Indicator 9a
Indicator 9a measures the staff engagement score for disabled colleagues, compared with that for colleagues who are not disabled.
Our engagement index is calculated using 4 specific survey questions, indicating how colleagues think and feel, how this affects their behaviour, and their desire to recommend or stay working at CQC. Our current approach is to include these questions only in our biennial People Survey (although some are included individually in our Pulse Surveys).
In 2024, the engagement score for disabled respondents was 50%. This compares with 56% for respondents who were not disabled. We do not have an engagement score in 2025 as this was a Pulse Survey.
Indicator 9b
Indicator 9b measures whether we have taken action to facilitate the voices of disabled colleagues in our organisation so they are heard. We should provide one practical example of action taken in the last 12 months to engage with disabled colleagues.
Example 1: We ensured that there was appropriate engagement with the Co-Chairs of our Disability Equality Network (DEN) and input from disabled colleagues to develop our refreshed purpose, vision, values and behaviours.
Example 2: The Chair(s) of the Disability Equality Network attend the People and Culture Committee and meetings of CQC’s Board to provide updates on their work and discuss any barriers facing members.
Example 3: The Chair(s) of the Disability Equality Network were engaged as part of our Freedom to Speak Up external review, ensuring that the views of network members inform our long-term improvements.
Indicator 10
Indicator 10 requires that we report the percentage difference between the organisation’s Board voting membership and its overall workforce, disaggregated by voting membership of the Board, and executive membership of the Board.
| Category | Not disabled | Disabled | Not stated |
|---|---|---|---|
| (i) Non-executive membership | 74.1% | 0% | 28.6% |
| (ii) Executive membership | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| Overall Board membership | 84.6% | 0% | 15.4% |
| Overall workforce | 79.3% | 15.4% | 5.3% |
Data as at March 2025
What our data is telling us:
- As at the data snapshot date, there were no Board members with a disability. The status of 2 non-executive board members was unknown.
- This zero-figure combined with the increase in the overall representation figure (up from 12.4% to 15.4%) means that the overall metric has declined from 2024.
Appendix: Workforce Disability Equality Standard indicators (developed by the NHS)
Workforce indicators
For each of these 4 workforce indicators, we compare the data for disabled staff and staff who are not disabled.
1. Percentage of staff in Agenda for Change (AfC) pay-bands or medical and dental subgroups and very senior managers (including Executive Board members) compared with the percentage of staff in the overall workforce. (Note: We undertake this calculation separately for non-clinical and clinical staff in clusters 1 to 4.)
Cluster 1: AfC Bands under 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Cluster 2: AfC Bands 5, 6 and 7.
Cluster 3: AfC Bands 8a and 8b.
Cluster 4: AfC Bands 8c, 8d, 9 and VSM.
Cluster 5: Medical and dental staff, consultants.
Cluster 6: Medical and dental staff, non-consultant career grades.
Cluster 7: Medical and dental staff, trainee grades.
2. Relative likelihood of staff who are not disabled compared with disabled staff being appointed from shortlisting across all posts.
3. Relative likelihood of disabled staff compared to staff who are not disabled entering the formal capability process on the grounds of performance, as measured by entry into the formal capability procedure.
People/Pulse Survey indicators
For each of the 4 staff survey indicators, compare the outcomes of the responses for disabled and staff who are not disabled.
4. Percentage of disabled staff compared with staff who are not disabled experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from:
- patients/people who use services, their relatives, or other members of the public
- managers
- other colleagues.
5. Percentage of disabled staff compared with staff who are not disabled believing that CQC provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion.
6. Percentage of disabled staff compared with staff who are not disabled saying that they have felt pressure from their manager to come to work, despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties.
7. Percentage of disabled staff compared with staff who are not disabled saying that they are satisfied with the extent to which their organisation values their work.
8. Percentage of disabled staff saying that their employer has made reasonable adjustment(s) to enable them to carry out their work.
9a. The staff engagement score for disabled staff, compared with staff who are not disabled.
9b. Has CQC taken action to facilitate the voices of disabled staff in your organisation to be heard (yes or no)?
If yes, please provide at least 1 practical example of current action being taken in the relevant section of your WDES annual report.
If no, please include what action is planned to address this gap in your WDES annual report.
Board representation
For this indicator, compare the difference for disabled staff and those who are not disabled.
10. Percentage difference between the Board voting membership and its overall workforce, disaggregated by:
- voting and non-voting membership of the Board
- Executive and Non-executive membership of the Board.