Anne's Law draft regulations: consultation report

Methodology

Introduction

This section explains how the consultation was carried out and how the responses were analysed. It describes the different ways people were able to share their views, who took part, and how their feedback was handled. It also sets out the steps taken to organise and interpret the evidence, as well as the limits of the data.

The consultation used several methods so that a wide range of experiences could be included. These were:

• an online survey
• visits to care homes, where residents, relatives and staff were interviewed or took part in small focus groups
• feedback gathered through regular meetings with the Anne’s Law National Oversight Group

Using a mix of methods provided a fuller picture of how people expect the draft regulations to work in practice, compared to a single method alone. The survey offered structured responses to specific aspects of each regulation, while interviews in care homes provided rich insights from residents, families and staff. These different sources were brought together to inform the findings in this report.

Survey

A survey was used to gather views on the draft regulations for Anne’s Law. It included a mix of closed questions and short open-text boxes to capture additional comments. This approach provided both measurable responses and brief insight into how people felt the regulations might work in practice. The survey was delivered through Microsoft Forms, a platform widely used across the Scottish Government for its accessibility, security and compatibility with most devices. The survey was open for three weeks.

The survey link was shared widely through channels including emails, newsletters, and posts on X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn. It was promoted directly by the Scottish Government and through sector partners such as care home provider representatives. The combined audience of these channels was around 200,000 followers, subscribers and recipients. This figure reflects the potential reach across all platforms, though some individuals may have received the link through more than one channel. Anyone was eligible to participate in the survey. The distribution of the survey focused on those living in, supporting, delivering or working in social care settings, including care home residents, their families and friends, and care home staff and providers.

Closed questions were used for most of the regulations, asking respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with specific statements. Responses were captured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Strongly Agree’ to ‘Strongly Disagree’.

For analysis, ‘Strongly Agree’ and ‘Agree’ were combined to create an overall ‘Agree’ category, and ‘Strongly Disagree’ and ‘Disagree’ were combined to create an overall ‘Disagree’ category. Results are reported as ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’ or ‘Disagree’.

Open-text questions were included in the survey for regulations where wording could realistically be changed through the consultation process. This applied mainly to Regulations 2, 5 and 6, where the survey invited people to explain any concerns or suggest improvements. For the remaining regulations (3, 4 and 7), the wording is more tightly set by legislation, so respondents were only asked to answer closed questions.

Open-text responses were subject to a 250-character limit. Whilst this restricted the level of detail that could be provided, most comments were substantive enough to provide insight into why participants agreed or disagreed. The average length of response was 137 characters.

A total of 202 responses were included in the final analysis.

Breakdown by response groupings for individuals

A total of 145 responses identified themselves as individuals. Of these:

• 49 were from family members or friends of a care home resident
• 83 were from staff working in the health and social care sector
• 11 were from members of the general public
• 2 were from care home residents

Breakdown of response groupings for those answering on behalf of an organisation

A total of 57 responses were included in the final analysis. Of these:

• 30 were from those involved with adult care homes
• 27 were from organisations with an interest in the sector (e.g. Public Health Scotland, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Scottish Care, Care Inspectorate)

Survey Limitations

The survey reflects the views of 202 respondents and may not represent everyone affected by the regulations. People who choose to take part in consultations often do so because they have an interest in the topic, so the results cannot be used to indicate levels of wider public support. Some groups may also have faced barriers to participation, including time pressures or limited digital access. The character limit in open-text questions restricted the amount of detail respondents could provide. Importantly, very few care home residents completed the survey. Their perspectives are therefore likely under-represented in the survey findings, which is why visits to care homes were also undertaken.

Despite these limitations, the survey provided robust feedback. It highlighted areas where greater clarity, adjustments to wording or additional guidance may be needed, and it gave a strong indication of how participants viewed the regulations overall.

Additional Responses

In addition to the survey and care home visits, several organisations sent written submissions directly to the Scottish Government. These responses were voluntarily submitted outside the formal survey process by organisations that wished to share more detailed views on the draft regulations.

These responses were accepted because they offered insight from key stakeholders with interests in and responsibilities under Anne’s Law, or who support people living in care homes. They included contributions from a small number of national and sector-level organisations, including professional bodies, public health and regulatory organisations, and organisations with legal or advocacy expertise. Their submissions often contained more detailed analysis of the draft regulations, comments on implementation and suggestions for clearer or more practical wording.

Each response was logged and reviewed in full. Points raised by organisations were grouped under the relevant regulation, in line with the approach used for the survey and care home visits. Where comments did not fit directly under a single regulation, they were included in a separate summary section so that no information was overlooked. This ensured that organisational feedback was treated consistently and could be compared with themes emerging from other parts of the consultation.

Care Home Visits and Interviews

Care home visits were carried out to gather the views and experiences of care home residents who may not have been able to take part in the online survey. The opportunity was also used to gather the views of care homes residents’ families and friends, and staff. This approach supported the inclusion of people with communication difficulties, cognitive impairments or limited digital access, capturing voices that are often missing from written consultations. These interviews were particularly important given the small number of survey responses expected from care home residents, helping to ensure their perspectives were represented in the overall findings.

Five visits took place in October 2025 across a range of care homes in Scotland. These included services for older adults, people with learning disabilities and people requiring complex care. Homes were located in both urban and rural areas and varied in size, from 6 residents to 60 residents, and provider type. Services were invited to take part through the Care Inspectorate’s national mailing list, and most visits were arranged through this route. A representative from the Care Inspectorate joined each visit to offer operational insight and help ensure a supportive and safe environment for residents. Across the five visits, 37 people took part, including residents, relatives and staff.

Residents were invited to take part in either interviews or small focus groups, depending on what suited them best. A semi-structured topic guide, noted in Annex C, supported flexible conversations that could adapt to people’s needs. The approach was designed to be sensitive and inclusive, recognising the emotional impact of previous visiting restrictions during the pandemic and the need to avoid causing distress. Participation was voluntary and residents were told they could pause, stop, or leave the interview/focus group at any time. If participants showed signs of distress, the interview/focus group was paused or ended. Where appropriate and consent was given, discussions were recorded on a secure device and later transcribed with all identifying details removed.

The conversations aimed to explore how well residents understood key parts of the regulations and how these might work in practice. This included views on identifying an Essential Care Supporter, Essential Visits and the process for reviewing decisions to suspend visiting. The informal, conversational style helped residents express what mattered most to them, and many spoke about connection, separation and day-to-day life in the care home.

Interviews and group discussions were also held with care home residents, their families and friends, and care home staff, including managers, nurses, carers, activities staff and allied health professionals. Their contributions helped build a fuller picture of how visiting arrangements work in practice, the challenges experienced during periods of restricted access and what would help make the regulations workable in practice.

These visits produced a large volume of qualitative data. This was analysed using a structured framework to identify common themes across all homes. Anonymised quotes have been included where they help illustrate key points.

There are some limitations to this method. The number of homes visited was small, and the residents who took part may not represent the full diversity of care home settings. Some people were unable to participate directly due to health needs, and insights from relatives and staff sometimes reflected their wider experiences rather than the residents’ alone. Despite these limitations, the visits provided detailed evidence that adds depth to the survey findings and ensures that the voices of people living in care homes are central to this report.

A fuller thematic breakdown of what residents, families and staff told us is provided in Annex B in this report.

Analysis Approach

All consultation data was analysed internally by the Scottish Government. Responses were logged, stored securely and handled in line with data protection requirements. Personal or identifying information was removed before analysis.

Quantitative data from the survey were exported from Microsoft Forms and summarised using simple descriptive statistics including frequencies and percentages. This provided a clear picture of how strongly people agreed or disagreed with each part of the regulations.

Qualitative comments from the survey, care home visits, group meetings and additional organisational submissions were analysed using a coding framework. The framework was developed by reviewing a sample of early responses and identifying recurring themes. These included:

• Clarity - is the regulation understandable?
• Practicalities - how will it work in practice?
• Solutions - are improvements or alternatives suggested?
• Safeguarding - are risks or protections highlighted?
• Roles and Responsibilities - who should be involved in decisions?
• Accessibility - is the wording inclusive and usable?

Applying the same framework across all data ensured that responses from different groups were treated consistently.

Following analysis of each component of the consultation, the findings across all methods were compared by evaluating points of agreement and disagreement across the data.

As with all consultations, there are limitations with this approach. Participation was voluntary, and the depth of responses varied, particularly where the survey’s character limit restricted detail. Care home visits involved a small number of settings, and experiences may not reflect the full variety of circumstances across Scotland. Due to the short timescales available, the consultation could not be distributed through wider platforms such as CitizenSpace, which limited the routes through which people could be reached. Despite these limits, the use of multiple methods and cross-checking across sources provides a well-rounded and reliable evidence base.

Given all of these considerations, the consultation provided a solid base to understand where the draft regulations are clear and appropriate, and where they could be improved. The findings of the consultation are presented next.