Official Statistics

Measures from ASCOF, England: 2024 to 2025 - data sources, quality and uses

Published 18 December 2025

Applies to England

Introduction

This statement summarises the data quality of data sources used to form the metrics in the adult social care outcomes framework (ASCOF), England: 2024 to 2025.

This statement should be used in conjunction with the following documents published as part of this statistical release:

• statistical commentary
• client level data (CLD) methodology
• outcomes and demographic data tables
• time series data tables

How the data can be used

This data can be used to:

• understand the experiences and perceptions of adults who receive long-term social care and support services
• benchmark local authorities against each other
• gain insight into social care service users
• measure and monitor local performance
• alongside other local data, gain further insight
• aid policy development

This data cannot be used to make judgements about:

• how effective local authorities are at providing social care and support services
• the social care sector as a whole - short-term service users and those receiving private care are not included

Data sources

The 2024 to 2025 ASCOF metrics have been calculated using the updated ASCOF handbook of definitions.

Information about each of the data sources used in ASCOF is shown below.

Client level data (CLD)

The CLD collection is the first national collection of social care records, covering requests for support, assessments, reviews and services provided or arranged by local authorities as part of their duties under the Care Act 2014. CLD is administrative data, drawn from records held on local authorities’ case management systems for their own operational purposes.

The aim of the new CLD collection is to improve knowledge about the care and support provided or arranged by local authorities for adults. From 1 April 2024, CLD replaced the existing short and long term support (SALT) data collection as the primary source of information about local authority adult social care activity. For further information, see the SALT chapter in the Social care collection materials 2023 (archived).

For further details about the collection see the AGEM CLD information pages for local authorities. More information on the quality of the data can be found in the CLD quality statement and more information on the methods used to process the data can be found in methodologies for metrics derived from CLD.

Adult social care survey (ASCS)

The adult social care survey (ASCS) is an annual survey for England. Service users were sent questionnaires, issued by councils with adult social services responsibilities (CASSRs) in the period January to March 2025, to ask their opinion on a range of outcome areas. CASSRs will be referred to as local authorities throughout this report.

The eligible population for this survey covers all service users aged 18 and over in receipt, at the point that data is extracted, of long-term support services provided or commissioned by the local authorities or an NHS health partner under Section 75 arrangements and part of a care or support plan following an assessment of need.

The survey seeks the opinions of service users and is designed to help the adult social care sector understand more about how services are affecting lives to enable choice and for informing service development.

There are 3 main variants of the questionnaire which can be sent to a service user depending on their support setting or primary support reason. However, these variants are designed to cover the same questions, and the answers are combined to produce the results. The variants are:

• users receiving services in the community
• users in residential and nursing care
• easy read versions for service users with a learning disability

Details of the survey questions used to produce the ASCOF metrics are in the ASCOF handbook of definitions.

Further information on how the survey was run, including copies of the questionnaires, is available from NHS England social care surveys guidance and materials for 2024 to 2025.

Full details of this report, along with further information on data quality and the underlying methodology and validations are available from: Personal social services adult social care survey report England: 2024 to 2025.

Survey of adult carers in England (SACE)

The SACE is carried out every 2 years and most recently took place in 2023 to 2024.

The survey seeks the opinions of carers aged 18 or over who are caring for a person aged 18 or over, on topics considered to be indicative of a balanced life alongside their unpaid caring role.

Details of the survey questions used to produce the ASCOF metrics are in the ASCOF handbook of definitions.

Further information on how the survey was run, including copies of the questionnaires, is available from Social care surveys guidance and materials for 2023 to 2024. The SACE 2023 to 2024 publication features a statistical commentary and a more in-depth data quality statement.

Secondary uses service (SUS) and hospital episode statistics (HES)

The secondary uses service (SUS) data is a comprehensive national database that collects and stores data on hospital activity delivered by NHS hospitals. At pre-arranged ‘inclusion’ dates during the year, extracts from SUS are taken and processed into the hospital episode statistics (HES) data product. The contents of the SUS+ warehouse (the central data repository for patient-level healthcare data) will continue to change in response to the latest data flowed by providers, but HES data is frozen at the end of each financial year. Alongside this, various other extracts are taken from the SUS+ database, for use in other national databases and analytical platforms, such as the NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP), and the Unified Data Access Layer (UDAL).

Individual hospital records from SUS are linked with social care records in CLD for ASCOF metric 2D, to identify those who have been discharged from hospital and received reablement and those who were readmitted into hospital in the 12 weeks following hospital discharge. SUS data is currently used because it is accessible within the same environment as CLD, allowing timely analysis of operational data sets. HES, a cleaned version of SUS, is the preferred data set, but its future use will depend on consideration of timeliness, availability and access.

The SUS data was extracted on 8 September 2025. Any hospital readmissions where the person was discharged after this date will not be included.

The data set used has the following criteria:

• this discharge date is within the reporting period (that is, 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025)
• include patients aged 65 years or older at the time of discharge
• exclude patients with a zero-day length of stay (day cases)
• exclude patients who died in hospital
• include only specific acute and community treatment functions
• exclude those discharged into other NHS hospitals (such as those for mental health), independent hospitals and hospices

For more information, see the SUS guidance on the NHS England website.

Mid-year population estimates

Population estimates are produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and relate to the number of people resident in England on the 30 June in each year. They are used as denominators in ASCOF metrics 2B and 2C to provide a rate per standard volume of population in each geographical area. The latest available estimates at the time this report was prepared were the 2024 mid-year population estimates. The 2024 to 2025 mid year population estimates were calculated by the ONS using the 2021 census as a baseline.

For more information, see the ONS mid-year population estimates on the ONS website.

Geography

The local authority level data tables contain metrics broken down by local authority and region, in alignment with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) definitions. The local authority and region names and codes also align with those set out in the ONS guidance for administrative geographies. See the ONS Open Geography Portal for full guidance on ONS administrative geographies. It should be noted however, that the classification of council type differs - the MHCLG groupings used in this publication classify Greenwich as Inner London, and Haringey and Newham as Outer London. The ONS administrative geographies, however, classify Greenwich as Outer London, and Haringey and Newham as Inner London.

Data quality

This section outlines the data quality of each of the data sources used in the ASCOF publication. Where known issues have been identified, the local authorities affected have been highlighted. Caution should be taken when reviewing their data in case their ASCOF score has been impacted and may not be comparable.

Relevance

This report contains the final figures for the 2024 to 2025 ASCOF metrics for England.

The data released with this publication is used by central government to monitor the impact of social care policy and by local government to assess performance in relation to their peers. The data is also available for use by researchers looking at local authority performance and by service users and the public to hold local authorities and the government to account.

Accuracy

The data collected by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) undergoes validation at source through routines built into data collection tools. Further validation is conducted once the data is received and any queries are passed back to local authorities to give them the opportunity to resubmit their data. Each of the data sources that feed ASCOF metrics is below in terms of the accuracy of the data and any general data quality issues that have been identified.

CLD submissions

The quality of the client level data submitted by local authorities and used in ASCOF is outlined separately in the CLD quality statement.

Survey confidence intervals

Surveys produce statistics that are estimates of the real figure for the whole population, which would only be known had data been collected from the entire population. Therefore, estimates from the sample surveys are always surrounded by a confidence interval that assesses the level of uncertainty caused by only surveying a sample of service users.

A 95% confidence interval is a range of values calculated from sample data. It means that if we took many samples in the same way, about 95 out of 100 of those ranges would contain the true value for the population as a whole.

The ASCS and SACE is set up so that when a response option is chosen by 50% of survey respondents, the true value for population is likely to be within 5 percentage points of that number. For example, if the survey result is 50%, we can be fairly sure the real value is between 45% and 55%. However, it should be noted that:

• for local authorities with very small numbers of service users, it is particularly difficult to achieve the margin of error requirement
• margins of error are much smaller at national level than at local authority level as they are based on more respondents

When comparing 2 estimates, where confidence intervals do not overlap, the estimates are considered statistically different.

In a confidence interval, the range of values above and below the sample statistic is called the margin of error. In the example given above, the margin of error is 5 percentage points.

ASCS

The following information provides a summary of the data quality for the ASCS. Full details of this report, along with further information on data quality and the underlying methodology and validations are available from the Personal social services adult social care survey report England 2024 to 2025.

Missing data and response rates

The ASCS data tables provide an overview of administrative data submitted and the response rate for each local authority.

The Isles of Scilly and City of London are exempt from conducting the ASCS as the number of service users within their area who met the survey eligibility criteria was too small to guarantee statistically robust results. City of London chose to still undertake the survey, and their data is included in the report and accompanying data tables.

Derby City Council outsourced the delivery of its survey and did not receive its responses until after the closure of the submission window. As a result, its responses have not been included in this year’s analysis. Its 2023 to 2024 submission has been used to generate national and regional averages.

Random sources of bias - confidence intervals and margin of error

The ASCS data quality tables provides the margin of error achieved for each local authority. In total, 101 local authorities achieved a margin of error below 5%, 41 achieved a margin of error between 5% and 6%, and 9 had a margin of error above 6%.

Non-response and sampling bias

While non-response itself does not cause bias, it can increase the impact of bias if subgroups of the population are more likely to respond than others. This can lead to sampling bias, where certain subgroups of the population are overrepresented or underrepresented in the results. The response rates for each question for each local authority are provided in the ASCS data quality tables.

Survey design sources of bias

Respondents were allowed to have assistance when completing the questionnaire. Although this approach is not preferred, allowing this as part of the survey design is essential to help to make the ASCS as representative of as many service users as possible.

Service users under a deprivation of liberty safeguard (DoLS) authorisation should be excluded from the sampling frame. If a service user is under a DoLS authorisation, then they have satisfied a mental capacity assessment that states they lack capacity to make decisions about their care. This, therefore, indicates they lack capacity to consent to take part in the ASCS.

The person who helped the service user in completing the questionnaire is reported as help from:

• a care worker
• someone living in the same household
• someone living outside their household

The highest proportion of service users (29.9%) indicated they had help from someone living outside their household. The percentage of service users that answered they did not have help was 24.2%.

In addition to asking respondents if they received help, the type of help received is then captured. While there were instructions on the covering sheet to say that the service user should be involved in completing the questionnaire, 8.2% indicated the service user had not been involved at all in completing the questionnaire.

Further information on how services users responded to the survey questions against the type of help they received is in the ASCS data tables and ASCS question responses and demographic data tables (Table 1a - questions 22 and 23).

Local authorities not submitting a valid data return by the mandated deadline

The mandated deadline for submitting data returns was 7 May 2025. The 151 local authorities taking part in the survey submitted a valid data return by the mandated deadline and hence received a data quality report. Derby was the only local authority that did not make a submission by the mandated deadline.

Users of the data may wish to consider this when making comparisons between local authorities.

Validations

Validations are conducted at various stages of the process. All local authorities that submitted their data return by the initial mandated deadline received a validation report and a data summary report. Further details on the validations carried out are available in the ASCS data quality statement.

SACE

SACE is carried out every 2 years. The most recent 2 surveys were for the years:

• 2023 to 2024
• 2021 to 2022

The following information provides a summary of the data quality for the SACE. Full details of this report, along with further information on data quality and the underlying methodology and validations are available from the personal social services survey of adult carers in England, 2023 to 2024 on the NHS England website.

Missing data and response rates

The SACE data quality tables provide an overview of the level of missing administrative data submitted and the response rate for each local authority.

The Isles of Scilly and City of London are exempt from conducting the SACE in England as the number of carers within their area who met the survey eligibility criteria was too small to guarantee statistically robust results. City of London chose to still undertake the survey, and their data is included in the report and accompanying data tables.

The Isles of Scilly do not have ASCOF outcome scores for the following metrics:

• 1C (previously 1D)
• 1E (previously 3B)
• 3B (previously 3C)
• 3C part 2 (previously 3D(2))
• 5A part 2 (previously 1I(2))

Random sources of bias - confidence intervals and margin of error

The SACE data quality tables provide the margin of error achieved for each local authority. In total, 64 local authorities achieved a margin of error below 5%, 47 achieved a margin of error between 5% and 6%, and 41 had a margin of error above 6%.

Non-response and sampling bias

Non-response and sampling bias can occur if response rates are low and if particular subgroups of the population are more likely to respond than others. The response rates for each question for each local authority are provided in the SACE data quality tables.

Survey design sources of bias

The survey was designed so that respondents were allowed to have help when completing the questionnaire and around 8.1% of respondents did so. This was a decrease from 8.4% in 2021 to 2022. Although not ideal, allowing this as part of the survey design is essential to help to make the survey representative of as many carers as possible.

Local authorities not submitting a valid data return by the mandated deadline

The mandated deadline for submitting data returns was 29 February 2024. The 150 local authorities taking part in the survey submitted a valid data return by the mandated deadline and hence received a data quality report. The following local authorities did not make a submission by the mandated deadline:

• Haringey
• Buckinghamshire

Users of the data may wish to consider this when making comparisons between local authorities.

Validations

Validations are conducted at various stages of the process. Conditional formatting within the data return flags up invalid or contradictory entries and blank cells for mandatory questions. All local authorities that submitted their data return by the initial mandated deadline received a validation report and a data summary report. Further details on the validations carried out are available in the SACE data quality report.

SUS

Data submitted by NHS providers to the SUS+ service are subject to data quality checks at various points in the pipelines. Feedback loops, such as data quality dashboards and where necessary direct engagement, are also in place to notify data suppliers of identified issues and support resolution.

Further information on how SUS data is processed including validation is available from secondary uses service (SUS).

When data is processed into HES, a number of automated cleaning rules and derivations are applied. Data quality reports and checks are completed at various stages in this process. For further information see the HES processing cycle and data quality checks on the NHS England website.

Timeliness and punctuality

The data in this publication relates to the financial year 2024 to 2025 and therefore the lag from the end of the financial year is around 9 months. The publication has been released in line with the pre-announced publication date and is therefore deemed to be punctual.

Accessibility and clarity

There are no access restrictions that apply to the published data. Various approaches to suppression have been applied to aspects of the data. See details of these rules in the accompanying ‘adult social care outcomes framework, England: 2024 to 2025 - outcomes metrics data tables.

The adult social care outcomes framework report is published on GOV.UK and consists of several documents in HTML, ODS and CSV formats.

We have implemented the Government Statistical Service recommendations on improving accessibility of spreadsheets for users with disabilities. This guidance aims to help producers of government statistics and analysis meet the UK accessibility regulations for public sector websites.

Coherence and comparability

The ASCOF metrics are derived from 7 different data sources. Changes to the data sources are outlined in the ‘Comparability over time’ section of this statement.

The 2024 to 2025 ASCOF has been calculated using the updated handbook of definitions. The indicator names changed in 2023 to 2024 for a number of ASCOF metrics. Care should be taken when using the measure ID and comparing against previous years - see the old codes mapped to the latest codes in table 2 under the ‘Updated handbook of definitions’ section.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic the 2020 to 2021 ASCS was voluntary and so data is only available for the 18 local authorities that took part. This meant there was insufficient data to calculate England, regional and council type outcomes. The average for the 18 local authorities has been included for comparison purposes in the accompanying ‘Adult social care outcomes framework, England: 2024 to 2025 - time-series data’.

Assessment of user needs and perceptions

We welcome user feedback on the format and content of this report. Email suggestions or comments to asc.statistics@dhsc.gov.uk.

The ASCOF was initially co-produced by the DHSC-chaired ASCOF reference group which had membership from DHSC, local government and NHS Digital.

The ASCOF has since undergone a comprehensive review, commissioned by DHSC, to explore potential revisions and enhancements. The refreshed handbook of definitions will release in December 2025.

In developing new metrics, DHSC was mindful of the reporting burden on councils, and the need to retain a focus on measuring the success of the adult social care system in delivering high quality care and support.

Performance, cost and respondent burden

The data collection process used in this publication is subject to the Data Assurance Board (DAB) on behalf of the Data Alliance Partnership Board (DAPB). The process ensures that data collections:

• do not duplicate other collections
• minimise the cost to all parties
• have a specific use for the data collected

For more information on the DSAS, see Governance of information standards on the NHS England website.

Confidentiality, transparency, and security

The data contained in this publication is collected and prepared in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics.

Comparability over time

As a result of changes to the sources and definitions of metrics, care should be taken when comparing outcome values over time. Comparability comments have been added where there are changes to the measure which can affect comparability over time. These changes include changes to how the data is collected. Comparability comments are arranged in date order followed by collection type. The table below shows in which year there have been comparability comments for each measure.

Table 1: summary of ASCOF metrics and changes for 2024 to 2025 by data source, by year

Year	ASCS based metrics	CLD based metrics from 1 April 2024. SALT based metrics up to 31 March 2023	SACE based metrics	Mental health data set based metrics	Delayed transfers of care based metrics
2011 to 2012	1A, 1B, 1I(1), 3A, 3D, 4A and 4B	1E, 1G, 2A and 2B	No changes	No changes	No changes
2012 to 2013	No changes	No changes	3D	No changes	No changes
2013 to 2014	3D(1)	No changes	3D(2)	1F and 1H	No changes
2014 to 2015	1A, 1B, 1I(1), 3A, 3D(1) 4A and 4B	1C, 1E, 1G, 2A and 2B	1D, 1I(2), 3B, 3C and 3D(2)	No changes	No changes
2015 to 2016	No changes	1C, 1E, 1G, 2A, 2B and 2D	No changes	1F and 1H	No changes
2016 to 2017	1J	1E and 1G	1D, 1I(2), 3B, 3C and 3D(2)	1F and 1H	No changes
2017 to 2018	No changes	2A(1) and 2A(2)	No changes	No changes	2C(1) and 2C(2)
2018 to 2019	No changes	2A(1) and 2A(2)	No changes	No changes	No changes
2019 to 2020	No changes	1C1B and 1C2B	No changes	1F and 1H	2C(1), 2C(2) and 2C(3)
2020 to 2021	1A, 1B, 1I(1), 3A, 3D(1), 4A and 4B	No changes	No changes	No changes	2C(1), 2C(2) and 2C(3)
2021 to 2022	1A, 1B, 1I(1), 3A, 3D(1), 4A and 4B	No changes	No changes	1F and 1H	2C(1), 2C(2) and 2C(3)
2022 to 2023	No changes	No changes	No changes	1F and 1H	2C(1), 2C(2) and 2C(3
2023 to 2024	1A, 1B (previously 1J), 1D (previously 3A), 3A (previously 1B), 3C part 1 (previously 3D1), 4A and 5A part A (previously 1I1)	2A (previously 2D), 2B (previously 2A1), 2C (previously 2A2), 2D (previously 2B), 2E (previously 1G), 3D1a (previously 1C1a), 3D1b (previously 1C1b), 3D2a (previously 1C2a), 3D2b (previously 1C2b)	1C (previously 1D), 1E (previously 3B), 3B (previously 3C), 3C part 2 (previously 3D2), 5A part B (previously 1I2)	Metrics no longer included	Metrics no longer included
2024 to 2025	1A, 1B, 1D, 3A, 3C part 1, 4A and 5A part 1	2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E part 1, 2E part 2a, 2E part 2b, 3D1a, 3D1b, 3D2a, 3D2b	1C, 1E, 3B, 3C part 2, 5A part 2	Metrics no longer included	Metrics no longer included

Updated handbook of definitions

Data from the mental health services data set (MHSDS) and the monthly delayed transfers of care (DToC) are no longer included in the ASCOF handbook. Details of metrics using these data sources are included in the below sections by year.

The table below gives a list of all ASCOF indicators and the new and previous measure ID.

Table 2: all 2024 to 2025 ASCOF metrics matched with 2023 to 2024 metrics

Measure	Description	Source	Previous measure (before 2023 to 2024)
1A	Social care-related quality of life score	ASCS	1A
1B	Adjusted social care-related quality of life - impact of adult social care services	ASCS	1J
1C	Carer-reported quality of life	SACE	1D
1D	Overall satisfaction of people who use services with their care and support	ASCS	3A
1E	Overall satisfaction of carers with social services	SACE	3B
2A	The proportion of people who received reablement during the year, who previously were not receiving services, where no further request was made for ongoing support	CLD	2D
2B	The number of adults aged 18 to 64 whose long-term support needs are met by admission to residential and nursing care homes, per 100,000 population	CLD, ONS	2A(1)
2C	The number of adults aged 65 and over whose long-term support needs are met by admission to residential and nursing care homes, per 100,000 population	CLD, ONS	2A(2)
2D part 1	The proportion of people aged 65 and over discharged from hospital into reablement and who remained in the community within 12 weeks of discharge	CLD	2B(1)
2D part 2	The proportion of people aged 65 and over discharged from hospital, who received reablement services	CLD, HES	2B(2)
2E part 1	The proportion of people who receive long-term support with a learning disability, who live in their home or with family, aged 18 to 64	CLD	1G
2E part 2a	The proportion of people who receive long-term support who live in their home or with family, aged 18 to 64	CLD	Not applicable
2E part 2b	The proportion of people who receive long-term support who live in their home or with family, aged 65 and over	CLD	Not applicable
3A	The proportion of people who use services who have control over their daily life	ASCS	1B
3B	Proportion of carers who report that they have been included or consulted in discussion about the person they care for	SACE	3C
3C part 1	The proportion of people who use services who find it easy to find information about support	ASCS	3D(1)
3C part 2	The proportion of carers who find it easy to find information about support	SACE	3D(2)
3D part 1a	The proportion of people who use services who receive self-directed support	CLD	1C(1A)
3D part 1b	The proportion of carers who receive self-directed support	CLD	1C(1B)
3D part 2a	The proportion of people who use services who receive direct payments	CLD	1C(2A)
3D part 2b	The proportion of carers who receive direct payments	CLD	1C(2B)
4A	The proportion of people who use services who feel safe	ASCS	4A
4B	The proportion of section 42 safeguarding enquiries where a risk was identified, and the reported outcome was that this risk was reduced or removed	Safeguarding adults collection (SAC)	Not applicable
5A part 1	The proportion of people who use services who reported that they had as much social contact as they would like	ASCS	1I(1)
5A part 2	The proportion of carers who reported that they had as much social contact as they would like	SACE	1I(2)
6A	The proportion of staff in the formal care workforce leaving their role in the past 12 months	Skills for Care	Not applicable
6B	The percentage of residential adult social care providers rated good or outstanding by the Care Quality Commission (CQC)	CQC	Not applicable

2024 to 2025

CLD data set metrics

Metrics 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E and 3D are published for the first time in 2024 to 2025 derived from CLD. These metrics are official statistics in development and should not be compared to the previous metrics derived from SALT.

2022 to 2023

Mental health services data set (MHSDS) based metrics

Metrics 1F and 1H: due to a cyber incident, several providers’ data was impacted. To try and ensure data quality, providers that were impacted by the cyber incident were given additional time to make a further submission of their 2022 to 2023 data. Due to this, the ASCOF mental health indicators were not included in the initial 2022 to 2023 ASCOF publication. The report and data tables were republished in January 2024 to include the mental health indicators once the final 2022 to 2023 data was available. Further details are available on the NHS England website at national estimates, August 2022 to March 2023.

DToC based metrics

Metrics 2C(1), 2C(2) and 2C(3): due to both the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to release capacity across the NHS to support the response, the DToC collection was paused in February 2020 and has since been discontinued. As such, there are no indicators calculated for 2022 to 2023.

2021 to 2022

ASCS based metrics

Metrics 1A, 1B, 1I(1), 3A, 3D(1), 4A and 4B: due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 to 2021 ASCS survey was voluntary and only 18 local authorities chose to take part. As a result, England, regional and council type outcomes were not calculated, the average of the 18 local authorities was included for comparison. 2021 to 2022 England, regional and council type outcomes should not be compared to 2020 to 2021 data but can be compared to earlier years.

MHSDS based metrics

Metrics 1F and 1H: the ASCOF handbook of definitions defines service users to be included as adults who are receiving secondary mental health services who are on the care programme approach (CPA). With the publication of the community mental health framework, CPA has now been superseded nationally. Further details are available on the MHSDS publication page. As CPA has been decommissioned, the definition used in the 2021 to 2022 ASCOF is ‘adults who are in contact with mental health services at the end of the reporting period’. The ‘Monthly 1f and 1h outcomes measures metrics’ annex, which accompanies the 2021 to 2022 publication, includes a comparison on outcomes calculated using the new definition and the original (CPA) definition. As this is a change in definition, it is a break in timeseries and 1F and 1H data should not be compared to previous years.

DToC based metrics

Metrics 2C(1), 2C(2) and 2C(3): due to both COVID-19 pandemic and the need to release capacity across the NHS to support the response, the DToC collection was paused in February 2020. The outcomes for 2C were not calculated in 2021 to 2022.

2020 to 2021

ASCS based metrics

Metrics 1A, 1B, 1I(1), 3A, 3D(1), 4A and 4B: due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ASCS survey was voluntary and 18 local authorities chose to take part. As a result, England, regional and council type outcomes could not be calculated, the average of the 18 local authorities has been included for comparison.

DToC based metrics

Metrics 2C(1), 2C(2) and 2C(3): due to both the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to release capacity across the NHS to support the response, the DToC collection was paused in February 2020. The outcomes for 2C were not calculated in 2020 to 2021.

2019 to 2020

SALT based metrics

Metrics 1C1B and 1C2B: the SALT data collection identified carers who receive self-direct support and direct payments. SALT table LTS003 1a included carers aged under 18. As all other ASCOF metrics only included data on service users and carers aged over 18 and as payments are not offered to young people under the age of 16, the definition of 1C1B and 1C2B was amended to not include carers aged under 18. This change was approved by DHSC. The number of carers aged under 18 is small so this is not being treated as a break in time series.

MHSDS based metrics

Metrics1F and 1H: in April 2020, providers were able to retrospectively submit data for any monthly reporting period until the end of year cut-off using the multiple submission window model (MSWM). The end of year data for 2019 to 2020 also included data submitted through the MSWM. New and existing data providers were allowed to submit or resubmit data for periods from April 2019 to March 2020. Providers were able to refresh data they knew to be incorrect or missing following the issues experienced during the move to the strategic data collection service (SDCS) cloud data submission at the start of the 2019 to 2020 year and allowed new providers to submit retrospectively for the entire year. As this is not a change in definition, this is not being treated as a break in time series.

DToC based metrics

Metrics 2C(1), 2C(2) and 2C(3): due to both the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to release capacity across the NHS to support the response, the DToC collection was paused. The last month collected was February 2020. The 2C metrics were calculated using 11 months (April 2019 to February 2020) instead of 12. As the impact on the outcomes was small, this is not being treated as a break in time series.

2018 to 2019

SALT based metrics

Metrics 2A(1) and 2A(2): SALT identified new clients who either requested support (table STS001) or undertook a period of short-term support to maximise independence (table STS002a) through the route of access ‘self-funder with depleted funds’. In 2018 to 2019, the SALT tables were amended to identify ‘self-funders with depleted funds’ who have been previously provided with either a 12-week disregard or deferred payment since 1 April 2014. The additional information enabled the identification of those clients who appear to enter residential or nursing care for a second time when their funds have been depleted. This amendment prevented double counting as those clients who were previously provided with a 12-week disregard or deferred payment agreement (DPA) are excluded. The number of clients removed is expected to be small, so this is not being treated as a break in time series. The updated definition for measure 2A was added under the resources section of the 2018 to 2019 ASCOF publication.

2017 to 2018

DToC based metrics

Metrics 2C(1) and 2C(2): the methodology for reporting delayed transfers of care was changed in 2017 to 2018 from a monthly snapshot to an average daily figure for each month. The reporting was also changed from the number of patients whose transfer was delayed to the number of beds occupied due to delayed transfers. Figures from 2017 to 2018 are therefore not comparable with those from 2016 to 2017.

Metrics 2C(2) and 2C(3): the definition of metric 2C(2) was changed, from delayed transfers of care that were attributable to social care or jointly attributable to the NHS and social care, to only include delays that were solely attributable to social care. Delays that were jointly attributable to the NHS and social care are now recorded under metric 2C(3). 2017 to 2018 figures for metric 2C(2) are therefore not comparable with those from previous years.

MHSDS based metrics

Metrics: 1F and 1H: following the suspension of these indicators in 2016 to 2017 these indicators were reinstated in the main report. The MHSDS methodology has also been updated so that only whole numbers are published. 2017 to 2018 figures are not comparable with previous years.

Activity based metrics

Metrics 2A(1) and 2A(2): in 2017 to 2018 the tables that are used in the calculation of metrics 2A(1) and 2A(2) were amended. A new mandatory route of access ‘self-funder with depleted funds’ was added to tables STS001 and STS002a, and fields relating to prison were made mandatory (although please note that service users in prison are excluded for ASCOF). The impact of these changes are not large but should be considered when comparing data from 2017 to 2018 with previous years.

2016 to 2017

SACE based metrics

Metrics 1D, 1I(2), 3B, 3C and 3D(2): in 2016 to 2017 the eligible population changed so that in addition to carers being included that have had a carer’s assessment or review from the local authority in the 12 months prior to the survey taking place, carers are also now included who have not been assessed or reviewed during the year. For completeness and to review the impact of the change in eligible population, ASCOF scores were calculated using the original eligible population (that is, excluding those that did not have a review). These scores are available in brackets in table 1 of the measures from the adult social care outcomes framework, England: 2016 to 2017 report and the time series annex.

MHSDS based metrics

Metrics 1F and 1H: as mentioned below (see notes for 2015 to 2016), in January 2016 the source for statistics about people in contact with secondary mental health and learning disabilities services changed from the mental health and learning disabilities data set (MHLDDS) to MHSDS. The change in data set impacted on the completeness of data submitted by some providers.

To improve the quality and completeness of this data, an interactive report was made available to enable local authorities to view their monthly data at local authority and provider level.

Due to the completeness and quality of the data, the metrics 1F and 1H scores were suspended in 2016 to 2017 and not included in the report. The local authority scores were also not included in the disaggregated annex and time series annex file. The local authority scores are available in a separate annex file to enable local authorities to see what their 2016 to 2017 scores would have been. It is recommended that the interactive report is reviewed alongside the annex file to understand the completeness of the data for a particular council.

SALT based metrics

Metrics 1E and 1G: SALT data return was changed in 2015 to 2016 to enable councils to separate the number of people accessing long term support who are in prison. The prison column was added as a voluntary data item to SALT table LTS001a. This table is used to calculate ASCOF metrics 1E and 1G. As the prison column remained voluntary in 2016 to 2017, councils do not need to complete it. If a council does separate clients that are in prison, the clients in prison will not contribute to their ASCOF denominator. After reviewing the 2015 to 2016 and 2016 to 2017 data, very few local authorities reported clients with learning disabilities in prison so this change will have little impact on comparability over time for 2015 to 2016 or 2016 to 2017.

ASCS based metrics

Metric 1J: metrics 1J was included for the first time as a new ASCOF measure in 2016 to 2017.

2015 to 2016

MHSDS metrics

Metrics 1F and 1H: in January 2016, the mental health data set changed from MHLDDS to MHSDS. Due to the potential for change, and the proximity of the change to the point at which the data were needed, the ASCOF reference group agreed that data from the new MHSDS would be reviewed before being used as part of the ASCOF indicators. For the 2015 to 2016 ASCOF metrics, calculations are therefore based solely on the data from MHLDDS.

The change in data set also resulted in providers only being able to submit a primary version of their December data. A second, final submission is usually made, and this was not possible for December. This data therefore does not have the same definition as the final data used from April to November. As a result, the ASCOF metrics have been calculated using the average of 8 monthly scores from April to November.

The overall definitions of the ASCOF metrics 1F and 1H remain unchanged, so it was expected that the monthly scores should remain consistent. Analysis has shown a reduction in the scores in October and November, but this appears to follow the longer-term monthly trend. further details on this are provided in sections 1F and 1G of the measures from the adult social care outcomes framework, England: 2015 to 2016 report.

As the definitions remained unchanged and the monthly data shows consistent patterns to earlier months, scores from 2015 to 2016 can be compared to those from previous years. However, caution should still be taken when making these comparisons.

SALT based metrics

Metrics 1C, 1E, 1G, 2A, 2B and 2D: in the second year of the SALT data collection councils were provided with the opportunity to revise their 2014 to 2015 data. As such, some data has been updated from the previous year and the 2014 to 2015 ASCOF scores contained within this report have been recalculated. These revised scores are included within table 1 and are used as the basis for comparisons over time. Further information about the resubmissions is included within the community care statistics publication report which explains that only some of the councils who would have liked to have reviewed their data had the technology and resources to do so. Given this, caution should be exercised when reviewing the year-on-year trends provided and additionally, the SALT-based ASCOF scores for metrics 1C, 1E, 1G, 2A, 2B and 2D originally published in the 2014 to 2015 publication should no longer be used.

Metrics 1E and 1G: SALT data return was changed in 2015 to 2016 to enable councils to separate the number of people accessing long term support who are in prison. The prison column was added as a voluntary data item to SALT table LTS001a. This table was used to calculate ASCOF metrics 1E and 1GF. As the prison column is voluntary, councils do not need to complete it. If a council does separate clients that are in prison, the clients in prison will not contribute to the ASCOF denominator. After reviewing the 2015 to 2016 data, very few councils reported clients with learning disabilities in prison so this change will not impact on comparability over time for 2015 to 2016.

Details of changes from 2014 to 2015 and earlier

Details of the changes to the data sources from 2011 to 2012 until 2014 to 2015 are available in previous ASCOF publications.

Users and uses of the report

DHSC

The ASCOF is used to:

• inform policy monitoring
• inform speeches and briefings for ministers and senior officials
• answer Parliamentary questions and Prime Minister’s questions
• answer media enquiries and other correspondence
• ASCOF measure 2D (proportion of older people (65 and over) who remain in the community within 12 weeks of discharge from hospital into reablement or rehabilitation services) is part of the NHS outcomes framework.
• ASCOF metrics 2E (proportion of adults who live in their own home or with their family) and 5A (proportion of people who use services and their carers who reported that they had as much social contact as they would like) are part of the public health outcomes framework.

Local authorities

Local authorities will use the data in different ways but there will be some commonality between them. Ways in which local authorities use the data include:

• benchmarking against other local authorities
• measuring and monitoring local performance
• policy development
• service development, planning and improvement
• management information, local reporting and accountability
• informing business cases
• identifying any immediate priorities or areas for concern

Unknown users

This report is free to access online and therefore many users will access this publication without being known. It is important to understand how these users are using the statistics and to gain feedback on how DHSC can make the data more useful. To provide feedback, contact: asc.statistics@dhsc.gov.uk.

Related publications

This report forms part of a suite of statistical releases. Other releases cover information on the wider scope of activity and social services provided for adults by local authorities, and are available in the adult social care data hub.

Previous ASCOF publications were published by NHS England.