Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture

RSRCRC is structured around three pillars. Right Support is about how the care environment is designed: services are small-scale, located in ordinary communities, give the person choice and control over their own life, and avoid institutional patterns of care. Right Care is about how care is delivered to the person: care is person-centred, the person is treated with dignity, the staff understand the person's communication and behaviour, and restrictive practices are minimised. Right Culture is about the leadership and team culture inside the service: leadership knows the service, listens to people and families, has a learning culture, and acts on what surfaces.

RSRCRC reads alongside the underpinning rights framework: the Human Rights Act 1998 (especially Articles 3 and 8), the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Equality Act 2010 (with autism and learning disability as protected characteristics under the disability ground), the Care Act 2014, and the Mental Health Act 1983 where the person is detained. Closer to operational practice, the guidance references the LeDeR review programme (Learning from Lives and Deaths) and the STOMP/STAMP medication review initiatives.

CQC expects to see the three pillars operating in the day-to-day records of the service. The inspector samples care plans for person-centred detail, looks at restrictive-practice records for proportionality and review cadence, reads governance minutes for evidence the leadership team is hearing from the people who use the service, and tests whether the workforce profile (training, supervision, capability) matches the population the service supports.

For services in the Transforming Care population (autism, learning disability, mental health), CQC applies RSRCRC at the registration application stage as well as at inspection. A registration application for a new service that does not show how the three pillars will operate is typically not progressed.

RSRCRC patterns surface differently from the other regulations because the framework is interpretive rather than prescriptive. The most common gaps: care plans that describe the diagnosis but not the person, with the same plan shape across many service users; restrictive practices recorded in individual-incident logs but never aggregated into a reduction plan, so the leadership team cannot describe how the service is moving toward less restriction over time; medication reviews focused on the prescriber's judgement without the family, the advocate, or the person themselves named on the review record; and a workforce profile where mandatory training is current on paper but no specific autism-and-learning-disability competence is named or evidenced. RSRCRC is not satisfied by generic training and generic care plans; CQC reads for the specific, the named, and the chronological evidence that the service is operating around the person rather than around the diagnosis.

Verivius drives this regulation through the improvement-action lifecycle and the safeguarding lifecycle. Restrictive-practice records and their review cadence sit on the platform as cross-linked entries against the source incident and the improvement action that flows from it; the well-led trail at inspection shows how restrictions changed over time and what produced the change.

The dedicated adult-social-care sector pack (in active build) extends this with the LeDeR review workflow, STOMP/STAMP medication-review records, and an RSRCRC-specific governance template for the quarterly leadership review. The Verivius platform does not currently ship a sector-specific sample policy template for RSRCRC; the broader Reg 13 safeguarding and Reg 17 good governance templates are the closest fits.