Anne's Law draft regulations: consultation report

Findings

This chapter presents the consultation findings for each of the draft regulations. It brings together responses from the survey, insights from the care home visits, and summarises points made by the organisations that submitted additional written feedback. Each regulation is presented in turn.

Regulation 1 - Citation, commencement and interpretation

Regulation 1 sets out the formal provisions that apply to all of the draft regulations. It explains how the regulations should be cited, when they would come into force, and the definitions that apply across the rest of the document.

As these are standard procedural elements and do not create duties for care home providers, no survey questions were asked on Regulation 1 and no consultation findings are presented for this section. However, there were comments throughout the feedback that respondents would value more definitions in this section. Although there are restrictions on what can be included in this part of the regulations for legal reasons, consideration will be given to what definitions can be included here. In addition, a definitions section will be included in the Code of Practice.

Regulation 2 - Identification of Essential Care Supporters

Introduction

This section summarises views on how clear and workable Regulation 2 is, and what support providers may need to implement it consistently. There was strong agreement that the regulation is clear and appropriate.

Purpose of Regulation 2

The Care Reform (Scotland) Act recognises that some family and friends are also 'Essential Care Supporters' – an integral part of the care team for their loved ones. Anne’s Law recognises their role in providing care, support and companionship.

Regulation 2 explains how care home providers should identify Essential Care Supporters for their residents. An Essential Care Supporter could be someone who has been the resident's main carer, or simply a close contact, like a family member or friend. It explains what the provider must consider, including:

• consulting the resident and the resident's personal plan
• checking that the identified person would like to be a named essential care supporter

Draft Regulation

Below is the full draft wording for Regulation 2.

1) A provider must—

a) identify for every resident of accommodation provided by the care home service at least one individual as an Essential Care Supporter, unless—

i) doing so would be contrary to the resident’s wishes, or

ii) nobody can be identified who is able and willing to be the resident’s Essential Care Supporter, and

b) maintain a record of the Essential Care Supporters identified.

2) A provider must apply all of the following criteria in determining who is to be identified as a residents’ Essential Care Supporters—

a) the identity of the person must be in accordance with the resident’s wishes or, where appropriate, those of their representative,

b) the provider must not have reasonable cause to believe that—

i) the person to be identified may cause harm to the resident, or

ii) the person to be identified would act contrary to the best interests of the resident or would have any adverse effect on the resident, and

c) the provider must be satisfied that the person to be identified is able to undertake that role for that resident and is willing to do so.

3) In order to identify and determine a resident’s Essential Care Supporter, the provider must—

a) Prepare or review a resident’s personal plan under regulation 5 (personal plans) of the Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (Requirements for Care Services) Regulations 2011, and

b) Consult—

i) the resident, or where appropriate, their representative as set out in the resident’s personal plan, and

ii) with such relatives and friends of the resident as set out in a resident’s personal plan.

Survey Findings

Quantitative results

After being presented with draft regulation 2, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with two statements relating to this regulation:

I) “The process for consulting residents, representatives, and family or friends is clearly described within the regulations”

II) “The criteria for deciding who can be an Essential Care Supporter are appropriate”

199 people responded to statement 1, whilst 195 provided a response to statement 2.

Statement 1: the process for consulting residents, representatives and family/friends is clearly described

Responses:

• agree: 87% (174 people)
• disagree: 7% (13 people)
• neutral 6% (12 people)

Statement 2: The criteria for deciding who can be an Essential Care Supporter are appropriate

Responses:

• agree: 83% (164 people)
• disagree: 10% (19 people)
• neutral 7% (12 people)

As shown above, there was a very high level of agreement with both statements, indicating strong consensus amongst participants that the regulations provide clear guidance and appropriate criteria for identifying an ECS. A small minority felt the criteria could be clearer or more flexible in practice. Although the proportion of neutral responses was minimal, this indicates that a few participants were either undecided or felt neither strongly positive nor negative about these aspects of the regulations.

Qualitative themes

Following the closed-ended questions, participants were given the opportunity to expand on their answers in an open-text box. Specifically, participants were asked:

• Is there anything else you think care home providers should think about when they are identifying an Essential Care Supporter?

88 people (43% of survey respondents) provided a response to this question. These comments represented a minority of the overall survey participants and mainly offered practical reflections based on people’s experiences of supporting residents and families. This section of the report will summarise the views of participants who answered this question.

A frequent point was the importance of enabling residents to choose someone they trust and ensuring there is flexibility if circumstances change. This included reviewing arrangements regularly and recognising when more than one ECS or a substitute may be appropriate to maintain continuity of support. As one family member noted:

“Circumstances may change… maybe there should be a six-monthly review of the ECS.”

Some respondents also commented on how existing legal powers, such as Power of Attorney or Guardianship, should be considered. These reflections focused on ensuring decisions are made transparently and with a shared understanding among residents, families and providers. Some comments noted that there is the potential for disputes and that the criteria for identifying an ECS should not be used to exclude visitors or override residents’ wishes without due cause.

“Care Providers should see the law and regulations as enabling and a positive action to support residents, staff & families and not as a means to stop meaningful contact.”

In summary, respondents suggested that providers should:

• support residents to choose someone they trust, with flexibility if circumstances change
• review and update ECS arrangements regularly
• consider when more than one ECS or a substitute might be appropriate
• take account of existing legal powers (e.g. Power of Attorney or Guardianship) in a clear and transparent way

Taken together, the qualitative comments were constructive and reflected how people would expect providers to apply the regulation in practice. These suggestions will help inform the supporting Code of Practice that will support the regulations.

Additional responses

A small number of organisations submitted written responses outside the main survey. These responses were generally supportive of the regulation and highlighted areas where clearer guidance would support consistent implementation, including:

• ensuring decisions are transparent and well documented
• clarifying how ECS identification interacts with existing legal powers
• ensuring safeguarding processes are proportionate and fair, including that residents’ choices should not be overridden without due cause
• providing practical tools such as templates and worked examples

The detailed submissions are summarised separately later in the report.

Care home visit and interview findings

Care home visits provided rich insight into how residents, families and staff experience supportive relationships in practice. These discussions echoed the strong support shown in the survey relating to Regulation 2 and helped highlight what people value in an ECS.

Residents spoke about the emotional importance of having someone they know and trust consistently involved in their life. One resident said:

“I would feel lost and alone without my friends and family – they are everything to me.”

Families and staff emphasised that trusted relationships provide reassurance, continuity and advocacy, particularly for residents who find it difficult to communicate or express their needs. Staff also noted that families often recognise subtle changes in residents’ health and wellbeing, and that having them closely involved in residents’ care can be very valuable.

People also highlighted the importance of flexibility. This included recognising when more than one person plays a significant supportive role, and ensuring ECS arrangements can be updated as circumstances change. Some homes described existing practices where personal plans are reviewed regularly and where families are already actively involved.

Overall, the visits reinforced that the ECS role aligns closely with what residents and families value in everyday life, and that providers may benefit from clear guidance on how best to record and review these arrangements.

Fuller information on the care home visits can be found in Annex B.

Summary of findings

Overall, there was strong support for Regulation 2 and broad agreement that identifying an Essential Care Supporter is an important way to protect residents’ wellbeing and maintain meaningful relationships. Respondents generally described the regulation as clear and workable, with suggestions mainly focused on how providers can apply the process consistently and in a person-centred way. Some concern was raised about how the criteria in determining an ECS may be interpreted, and consideration will therefore be given to the wording of this section of the regulation.

Survey comments, additional responses and care home visits highlighted similar points: the importance of enabling residents to choose someone they trust, reviewing arrangements regularly, and providing flexibility where circumstances change. Some respondents also noted that recognising other existing legal powers and explaining decisions clearly would support transparency and reduce the likelihood of disagreements.

Most of the suggestions raised relate to how the regulation should be applied day-to-day and will inform the development of the Code of Practice. Additional organisational responses echoed these themes and will be considered alongside the broader feedback.

Regulation 3 - Right To Visit: General

Introduction

This section outlines what people told us about the core duty to facilitate visiting. There was strong agreement that the regulation is clear and reflects the intention of Anne’s Law.

Purpose of Regulation 3

This regulation explains that care home providers must ensure that residents can have visitors in the care home and that they can leave the care home to visit people they know.

Draft Regulation

Below is the full draft wording for Regulation 3.

1) A provider must facilitate visits—

a) to residents (“internal visits”), and

b) by residents (“external visits”).

2) Facilitating visits under paragraph (1)(b) does not require a provider to—

a) take or accompany a resident to a place outwith the accommodation provided by the care home service, or

b) arrange or pay for someone else to do so.

Survey Findings

Quantitative results

After reading draft regulation 3, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the following statement:

I) “The duty for care home providers to facilitate visits is clearly described within the regulations”

185 people provided a response.

Statement: the duty for care home providers to facilitate visits is clearly described within the regulations

Responses:

• agree: 82% (165 people)
• disagree: 10% (21 people)
• neutral 8% (15 people)

As shown above, most respondents (82%) agreed that the duty for care home providers to facilitate visits is clearly described within the regulations. This suggests strong confidence in the clarity of this requirement. A small minority disagreed (10%), while 7% selected a neutral response, indicating that a few participants were either unsure or did not hold a strong view. Overall, the results demonstrate broad support for how the duty is set out in the regulations.

There were no open-text questions for Regulation 3, reflecting that the wording is largely set by legislation and does not allow for detailed changes through consultation.

Additional responses

Organisations who submitted written responses were supportive of the core duty in Regulation 3. Their comments focused mainly on the need for clear guidance to ensure consistency across homes, particularly around communication with families and recording any practical arrangements linked to enabling visits.

These points are described further in the Additional Responses section later in the report.

Care home visit findings

No specific comments related to Regulation 3 were identified during the care home visits. Residents and families discussed the emotional importance of maintaining contact, but these comments did not refer to the general duty to facilitate visiting set out in Regulation 3.

Summary of findings

There was very strong support for Regulation 3 across all sources. Respondents generally felt the duty to facilitate visiting is clear, appropriate and central to maintaining residents’ wellbeing. No substantive concerns were raised about the wording of the regulation. Care home visits reinforced the importance of visiting for residents’ wellbeing and highlighted that the duty aligns with existing person-centred practice. Further guidance will help ensure consistency across providers, but no changes to the regulation itself were suggested.

Regulation 4 - Suspension of Visiting

Introduction

This section summarises views on the circumstances in which visiting may be suspended. Most respondents agreed the regulation is clear and sets an appropriate threshold.

Purpose of Regulation 4

In normal circumstances, there should be no restrictions on visits in or out of the care home. Care homes should not operate booking systems and should not normally impose any limitations on the number of visitors or the frequency, timing or duration of visits.

Regulation 4 explains that visits may only be suspended if there is a serious risk to life, health or wellbeing. This includes both visitors coming into the home and residents leaving to visit people they know. If a care home needs to suspend visits, they must quickly evaluate how that decision will impact their residents' rights. For example, they will need to consider the care home building, its residents and the nature of the risk. Each decision will depend on individual circumstances and the present risk.

Draft Regulation

Below is the full draft wording for Regulation 4.

1) A provider may suspend visits (either to and by all residents in the care home or to and by specific residents) only if the provider has reasonable cause to believe that it is essential to do so to prevent a serious risk to the life, health or wellbeing of—

a) in the case of internal visits, any person at the accommodation,

b) in the case of external visits, the resident or any other person at the accommodation, or persons at the place where the visit would take place.

2) Where a provider has suspended visits in accordance with paragraph (1), the provider must take all reasonable steps to eliminate or substantially mitigate the risk so that the suspension of visits can be lifted as soon as practicable.

Survey Findings

Quantitative results

After being presented with draft regulation 4, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with two statements relating to the regulation:

I) “The circumstances in which visiting can be suspended are clearly described within the regulations”

II) “The duty to lift visiting suspensions as soon as possible is clearly described within the regulations”

202 people responded to statement 1, whilst 201 provided a response to statement 2.

Statement 1: the circumstances in which visiting can be suspended are clearly described within the regulations

Responses:

• agree: 76% (153 people)
• disagree: 14% (29 people)
• neutral 10% (20 people)

Statement 2: the duty to lift visiting suspensions as soon as possible is clearly described within the regulations

Responses:

• agree: 82% (164 people)
• disagree: 10% (20 people)
• neutral 8% (8 people)

As shown above, most participants agreed that the circumstances in which visiting can be suspended are clearly described, with 76% indicating agreement. A smaller proportion disagreed (14%), while 10% selected a neutral response, suggesting some respondents were unsure or did not hold a strong view on the clarity of this part of the regulation.

Agreement was higher for the second statement, with 82% of respondents feeling that the duty to lift suspensions as soon as possible is clearly set out. Disagreement remained low (10%) and 8% responded neutrally. This suggests that the majority of respondents felt the duty to lift visiting suspensions as soon as possible was clearly described in the draft regulations.

Taken together, these results indicate broad confidence in the intent and clarity of Regulation 4, though with slightly more mixed views compared with earlier sections of the regulations.

There were no open-text questions for Regulation 4, reflecting that the wording is largely set by legislation and does not allow for detailed changes through consultation.

Additional responses

A small number of organisational submissions commented on suspension in principle. Their points focused on:

• the importance of clear criteria for determining when suspension is necessary
• ensuring that providers document the reasons for suspension carefully
• the need for strong communication with residents and families when any suspension occurs
• aligning suspension decisions with existing public health guidance

These comments related to implementation and clarity of process, rather than to changes to the regulation itself. Detailed organisational feedback is summarised separately later in the report.

Care home visit findings

Although participants spoke in depth about visiting more broadly, none of their comments related directly to the threshold for suspension set out in Regulation 4.

Participants discussed several elements of the draft regulations that related directly to their experiences, particularly Essential Care Supporters (Regulation 2), Essential Visits (Regulation 5), and Review of Decisions (Regulation 6). However, none of the discussions included feedback on the regulation outlining the general circumstances in which visiting may be suspended.

Summary of findings

Respondents showed high agreement with the provisions in Regulation 4. The survey results suggest that people generally find the circumstances for suspending visiting, and the duty to lift suspensions promptly, clear and appropriate. No qualitative comments were provided through the survey, and no specific points were raised on this regulation during the care home visits. Organisational submissions emphasised the need for clear communication and documentation but were supportive of the regulation’s intent.

Regulation 5 - Essential Visits

Introduction

This section presents feedback on when Essential Visits should take place during a suspension. Respondents strongly supported the intention of the regulation and agreed that the categories of Essential Visit were appropriate.

Purpose of Regulation 5

This Regulation explains that even when visiting has been suspended, some types of visits must still go ahead. These are called 'Essential Visits'. It sets out what types of visits these are.

One type of essential visit includes where a suspension of visits is causing or likely to cause serious harm to a resident’s health or wellbeing. That serious harm will always require to be weighed against the serious risk that led to the suspension. However, Anne’s Law also includes a legal presumption that suspending visits from an Essential Care Supporter is always likely to cause serious harm to their loved one’s health and wellbeing. This presumption will therefore be taken into account when undertaking the balancing exercise required between the serious harm to the resident and serious risk that justifies the suspension to visiting, in order to determine whether an essential visit of this type should be permitted.

Draft Regulation

Below is the full wording for the draft Regulation 5.

1) Even in cases where a provider has reasonable cause to believe that suspending visits is essential to prevent a serious risk of the kind described in regulation 4(1), the provider must continue to facilitate visits to or by a resident, in accordance with regulation 3, if—

a) the provider has reasonable cause to believe that,

i) before the suspension of visits is lifted, the resident will have died, or undergone (or begun to undergo) a significant deterioration in physical or mental condition, or

ii) the suspension of visits is causing, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the resident’s health or wellbeing and the harm outweighs the serious risk, and

b) the resident and the person visiting, or being visited by, the resident agree to take any action or precaution that the provider reasonably considers would mitigate the serious risk to any extent (other than a negligible one).

2) In determining whether the exception in paragraph (1)(a)(ii) is applicable, it is to be presumed that the suspension of visits to a resident by the resident’s Essential Care Supporter is likely to cause serious harm to the resident’s health or wellbeing.

Survey Findings

Quantitative results

After reading draft regulation 5, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with two statements relating to this regulation:

I) “The types of Essential Visits are clearly described within the regulations”

II) “It makes sense to class these visits as ‘essential’ within the regulations”

201 people responded to statement 1, whilst 200 provided a response to statement 2.

Statement 1: the types of Essential Visits are clearly described within the regulations

Responses:

• agree: 82% (164 people)
• disagree: 8% (16 people)
• neutral 10% (21 people)

Statement 2: it makes sense to class these visits as ‘essential’ within the regulations

Responses:

• agree: 90% (180 people)
• disagree: 4% (8 people)
• neutral 6% (12 people)

As shown above, there was a strong level of agreement with both statements relating to Essential Visits. 82% of respondents agreed that the types of Essential Visits are clearly described, although 10% were neutral and 8% disagreed, indicating that a small proportion felt unclear or undecided about this definition. Agreement was even higher for the second statement, with 90% of respondents feeling that it makes sense to classify these visits as essential. Only a small minority disagreed (4%), and 6% selected a neutral response.

Taken together, these results suggest broad confidence in the intent and structure of Regulation 5, with most respondents recognising the importance of clearly protecting certain types of visits when wider visiting is restricted.

Qualitative themes

In addition to the closed questions, participants were provided with the option to expand on their answers through an open-text box. Specifically, participants were asked:

• If you don’t think the visits listed in the regulations should be classed as Essential Visits, what types of visits should be?

26 people (12% of survey respondents) provided a comment. These comments represent a minority of the overall sample and focused mainly on adding clarity or highlighting situations that matter deeply to residents and families, rather than suggesting changes to the regulation itself.

A recurring point was the importance of recognising that “essential” contact can take many forms and is not defined solely by end-of-life situations. Several respondents noted that emotional support, continuity of relationships and reassurance were equally important factors that care homes should consider. One respondent wrote:

“For many people, emotional support is essential — not only at end of life.”

Some respondents suggested that the definition of “significant deterioration” could be more clearly illustrated, and that guidance would help providers judge when the harm caused by suspension outweighs the risk.

Others highlighted that Essential Visits should apply consistently and transparently. They commented that residents and families should understand how decisions are made, and that care homes should review decisions considering the risks associated with stopping visits.

In summary, respondents suggested that providers may wish to:

• recognise that essential contact can include emotional and psychological support, not only end-of-life care
• review residents’ wellbeing regularly during any suspension of visits
• provide clear explanations to families about decisions and thresholds
• use the Code of Practice to support consistent decision-making

Taken together, the qualitative comments supported the intent of the regulation and emphasised the importance of clarity, transparency and timely review during visiting suspensions.

Additional responses

Organisations who submitted written responses were generally supportive of the principle of Essential Visits. Their comments focused on cross-cutting issues such as:

• ensuring the terms “serious harm” and “significant deterioration” are well-defined in guidance
• providing clear processes to support consistent decision-making
• the need for strong communication with families during periods of restricted visiting
• ensuring decisions are documented and regularly reviewed

These points relate to implementation and are addressed at a high level here, with full organisational feedback summarised later in the report.

Care home visit and interview findings

Care home visits provided detailed insight into the impact of suspended visiting and why certain visits must always go ahead. Residents, families and staff described the significant emotional and psychological harm experienced during previous visiting restrictions. They strongly supported the principle that Essential Visits should not be stopped. One resident described the impact of isolation:

“It was awful not seeing my family. I didn’t know what was happening.”

Staff also highlighted that families often notice subtle changes in wellbeing, and that their presence is vital when residents are distressed, confused or experiencing fluctuating health. Several residents and relatives said that visits from the people closest to them, particularly their ECS, were essential to their identity, safety and comfort.

Participants supported the regulation’s emphasis on balancing risk and harm, noting that residents’ wellbeing can deteriorate quickly without meaningful contact. They also stressed the importance of flexibility, clear communication and rapid review of decisions during any suspension.

Fuller information on the care home visits can be found in Annex B.

Summary of findings

There was strong support for Regulation 5 across all consultation sources. Respondents agreed that the types of Essential Visits are appropriate and that the regulation reflects the importance of maintaining critical contact even when wider visiting is suspended. Feedback focused on how providers can assess deterioration, balance harm and risk, communicate decisions and ensure that residents’ emotional needs are recognised. Care home visits provided powerful insight into the harm that can arise from isolation and reinforced the importance of ensuring Essential Visits continue in all but the most exceptional circumstances. The points raised will be addressed further in the Code of Practice.

Regulation 6 - Review of Decision to Suspend Visiting

Introduction

This section summarises feedback on the process for reviewing suspension decisions. Respondents agreed that the grounds for requesting a review were clear and reasonable.

Purpose of Regulation 6

This Regulation explains:

• that a decision to suspend visits must be reviewed if someone asks for a review
• the grounds for requesting a review

More detail on how this would work in practice will be included in the Code of Practice.

Draft Regulation

Below is the full draft wording for Regulation 6.

1) Where a provider has decided to suspend visits, the provider must review that decision upon receipt of a valid request as described in paragraph 2).

2) A request must be in writing and made on one or more of the following grounds—

a) that a visit should continue because one of the situations described at regulation 5(1)(a) apply,

b) that there has otherwise been a failure to comply with the Code of Practice so far as it relates to the suspension of visits, or

c) that there has been a change of circumstances which requires a review of the decision to suspend visits.

Survey Findings

Quantitative results

Participants were first presented with draft regulation 6, before they were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with three statements relating to the regulation:

I) “The grounds for requesting a review are clearly described within the regulations”

II) “The grounds for requesting a review are appropriate”

III) “The requirement for the review request to be in writing is reasonable”

201 people responded to statement 1, 201 provided a response to statement 2, and 201 to statement 3.

Statement 1: the grounds for requesting a review are clearly described within the regulations

Responses:

• agree: 82% (165 people)
• disagree: 8% (17 people)
• neutral 10% (19 people)

Statement 2: the grounds for requesting a review are appropriate

Responses:

• agree: 83% (166 people)
• disagree: 8% (17 people)
• neutral 9% (18 people)

Statement 3: the requirement for the review request to be in writing is reasonable

Responses:

• agree: 73% (146 people)
• disagree: 14% (28 people)
• neutral 13% (27 people)

As shown above, most participants agreed that the grounds for requesting a review are both clearly described (82%) and appropriate (83%). A smaller proportion disagreed (8% for both statements), while around 9% selected a neutral response, suggesting broad agreement amongst participants.

Agreement was lower for the third statement. While almost three quarters of respondents (73%) felt that requiring review requests to be made in writing is reasonable, there was some level of disagreement (14%) and neutrality (13%) in relation to this part of the regulation.

This indicates that, although overall support remains strong, some participants may have concerns about accessibility or the practical implications of submitting a written request. Collectively, the results show broad confidence in the clarity and intent of Regulation 6, with slightly more mixed views on the written request requirement.

One additional question asked respondents how long care homes should have to respond to a review request:

• “Following a request to review a decision to suspend visiting, how long should the care home have to respond with a conclusion?
  • 24 hours
  • 48 hours
  • No time frame
  • Don’t know”

A total of 59 people (29% of survey respondents) answered this question. Participants ranked the four options in order of preference. The table below summarises the proportion of respondents, as a percentage, who selected each option as their first, second, third or fourth choice.

Timeframe	First Choice	Second Choice	Third Choice	Fourth Choice
24 hours	59%	32%	7%	2%
48 hours	27%	51%	19%	3%
No Time Frame	12%	12%	56%	20%
Don't know	2%	5%	19%	75%

Among those who responded, 24 hours was the most frequently selected first-choice option, followed by 48 hours. However, the overall pattern was mixed, with sizeable proportions ranking the same option differently. The small number of responses means the results should be interpreted with caution, and no clear consensus can be drawn on what the timeframe should be.

Qualitative themes

Following on from the closed-ended questions, participants were given the opportunity to expand on some of their answers through an open-text box. Specifically, participants were asked:

• “If you think there should be any other grounds on which a request could be made, please list them here.”

A total of 29 respondents (14%) left comments. These represented a minority of the overall responses. The points raised focused mainly on the importance of clarity and transparency in decision-making when suspending visits.

In addition, respondents used the text box to highlight accessibility concerns with the proposed regulation, specifically that the review request must be in writing.

Overall, the qualitative comments supported the principle of a clear review process and asked for guidance to ensure that the process remains accessible and fair.

Additional responses

Organisational responses highlighted a small number of points relevant to reviews, including:

• the importance of clear procedures to support consistent decision-making
• the need for documented reasons when suspensions are upheld or lifted
• ensuring the review process is accessible for residents who cannot make written requests
• alignment between the regulations, safeguarding duties and public health processes

These points relate to implementation rather than changes to the regulation itself. There was reference to the timeframe question in which one response mentioned a flexible time frame when residents may be facing a serious health risk:

“the time frame should be left in any case open to exception, according to the circumstance – e.g. end of life could be very time sensitive and cannot be legislated for”

The organisational feedback is summarised separately later in the report.

Care home visit and interview findings

The care home visits included discussion about experiences of suspended visiting, but no comments were made directly about the wording set out in Regulation 6. Participants spoke in support for the ability to review a decision to suspend visiting. And then more broadly about the importance of timely communication, clear explanations and responding quickly when residents’ wellbeing changes, themes that align with the intention of Regulation 6 but were not raised in direct reference to it.

Fuller information on the care home visits can be found in Annex B.

Summary of findings

There was strong support for Regulation 6 across the consultation. Respondents largely agreed that the grounds for requesting a review are clear and appropriate, and although most felt that requiring requests in writing is reasonable, levels of disagreement and neutrality were higher than for the other questions.

Qualitative comments emphasised fairness, accessibility and the importance of taking account of changes in residents’ wellbeing. No concerns were raised about the regulation’s intent. Suggestions focused on how the review process could be supported in practice and made as accessible as possible. As a result of the feedback, consideration will be given to amending Regulation 6 (2) (that a request must be in writing). Other points will be taken forward as part of the Code of Practice.

Whilst there was general support for a timeframe for care home providers to respond with a conclusion once a request to review has been received, there was no strong consensus on what this timeframe should be. Additionally, some respondents noted that this timeframe should be sensitive to individual circumstances rather than set and inflexible. This, coupled with the low response rate to this question, means that a specified timeframe will not be included as a regulation. Guidance on this will be explored in the Code of Practice instead.

Regulation 7 - Notification of Decision to Suspend Visiting

Introduction

This section of the report presents feedback on Regulation 7, which relates to the notification of a decision to suspend visiting. Specifically, this section summarises what people told us about how clear the draft regulation is, how well it might work in practice, and what support may be needed to implement it consistently.

Purpose of Regulation 7

This regulation explains who a care home provider must notify when they suspend visits. This is Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS) which is commonly known as the Care Inspectorate, and the Chief Social Work Officer of the local authority.

Draft Regulation Wording

Below is the full draft wording for Regulation 7.

1) Where a provider has suspended visits in accordance with regulation 4, the provider must as soon as practicable notify that decision to—

a) Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland,

b) the chief social work officer of the local authority in whose area the care home is located.

Survey Findings

Quantitative results

After reading the draft regulation 7, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with two statements relating to the regulation:

I) “The requirement to notify the Care Inspectorate and Chief Social Work Officer when visits are suspended is clearly described within the regulations”

II) “The requirement to notify the Care Inspectorate and Chief Social Work Officer is appropriate”

202 people responded to statement 1, whilst 202 provided a response to statement 2.

Statement 1: the requirement to notify the Care Inspectorate and Chief Social Work Officer when visits are suspended is clearly described within the regulations

Responses:

• agree: 91% (184 people)
• disagree: 5% (11 people)
• neutral 4% (7 people)

Statement 2: the requirement to notify the Care Inspectorate and Chief Social Work Officer is appropriate

Responses:

• agree: 90% (182 people)
• disagree: 5% (11 people)
• neutral 5% (9 people)

As shown above, there was very strong agreement with both statements relating to Regulation 7. 95% of participants felt that the requirement to notify the Care Inspectorate and Chief Social Work Officer is clearly described, with only 5% disagreeing and 4% selecting a neutral response.

Agreement remained high for the second statement, with 91% indicating that the notification requirement is appropriate. A small minority disagreed (5%), and 4% selected a neutral response.

Taken together, these findings show widespread confidence in both the clarity and the purpose of this regulation, with very few respondents expressing uncertainty or disagreement.

There were no open-text questions for Regulation 7, reflecting that the wording is largely set by legislation and does not allow for detailed changes through consultation.

Additional responses

A small number of organisational submissions referenced the need for clear processes and documentation around the suspension of visiting, including how and when notifications should be issued. These comments related to implementation and operational guidance, rather than suggesting changes to the regulation itself. More detailed organisational feedback is summarised separately later in the report.

Care home visit and interview findings

No comments were made about Regulation 7 during the care home visits. Participants focused on areas that directly affected their experiences (such as Essential Care Supporters, Essential Visits and review processes) but did not raise any specific points about the requirement for care homes to notify the Care Inspectorate or local authority when visiting is suspended. The importance of communication between care home staff and families was a key theme, however, particularly in relation to visiting.

Summary of findings

Regulation 7 received very high levels of agreement across the survey. Participants felt the requirement to notify the Care Inspectorate and Chief Social Work Officer is both clear and appropriate. No issues with these notifications were raised during the care home visits. Organisational responses suggested that clear guidance on roles, communication and record-keeping would support consistency, but did not indicate concern with the intent or wording of the regulation itself.

Although there were no open-text questions for Regulation 7, there were references to the importance of communication to care home residents and their family and friends in other open-text boxes, and also during the care home visits. Consideration will therefore be given to including a regulation to notify care home residents and their family and friends of a decision to suspend visiting, in addition to the duty to notify the Care Inspectorate and Chief Social Work Officers.

Survey: Final Comment

At the end of the survey, a final open-text question with a 350 character limit was included to allow respondents to share any additional reflections on how the regulations might work in practice. Specifically, participants were asked:

• “Is there anything else you’d like to say about how the regulations are written or how they might work in practice?”

This question was optional and responses varied in length and detail. Sixty people (30% of survey respondents) chose to leave a final comment. Responses included a mix of reflections, suggestions for improvement, and broader views on visiting in care homes.

Most comments did not relate to a specific regulation but instead offered general feedback on implementation, communication and the importance of meaningful contact. These perspectives add useful context to the findings presented throughout the report.

Several respondents emphasised the emotional impact of visiting arrangements and expressed support for the purpose of Anne’s Law. As one participant wrote,

“Human contact is vital – I’m glad this is being taken seriously.”

Many comments highlighted the need for good communication between families and care homes, both when things are working well and when concerns arise. As one participant explained,

“It should be easier to know who to speak to and how decisions are made.”

Practical issues were also raised, including the time needed for documentation, staff confidence in applying the regulations, and the need for accessible guidance for residents and relatives.

Overall, the final comments reinforced three broad points:

• people strongly support the purpose of Anne’s Law and the focus on the importance of staying connected with loved ones
• clear, consistent processes and communication will be important to making the regulations work in practice
• supporting guidance and examples will help providers apply the regulations confidently and transparently

These reflections provide additional context to the regulation-specific findings and will be considered alongside the wider consultation evidence when finalising the regulations and developing the Code of Practice.