From 1 July 2026, new quality inspection guidelines apply to home care in Germany: the QPR ambulante Pflege Part 1a for home care services and Part 1b for home support services (Medizinischer Dienst Bund). Inspections no longer work through one individual criterion after another. Instead, inspection teams assess cross-cutting quality aspects using a sample of the people being cared for, and the focus shifts markedly towards outcome quality (Medizinischer Dienst Bund). Findings are graded in four categories from A to D, and only categories C and D appear in the public quality report (Medizinischer Dienst Bund). For a care service that means the result reads differently, is published differently and is searched for differently. This article shows how a dedicated Quality and Transparency page explains the outcome, how to use the 28-day right to comment, and where German competition law draws the line.
Key takeaways
- The QPR home care inspection guidelines apply from 1 July 2026, Part 1a for home care services and Part 1b for home support services; inspectors assess cross-cutting quality aspects in a sample of people receiving care (Medizinischer Dienst Bund).
- Categories A to D form a risk scale rather than school grades: C marks a deficit that risks negative consequences, D one that has already caused harm. Only C and D appear in the public quality report (Medizinischer Dienst Bund).
- A Quality and Transparency page states the inspection status with an as-of date, explains the system in plain language, points to the regional care funds' publication under Section 115(1a) SGB XI and names a contact person with a phone number.
- Once the report arrives, 28 days remain to add information and comment on it (vdek). A prepared template covering the facts, the context, the measure taken and its review date keeps the response from turning defensive under time pressure.
- Publication is the duty of the regional care fund associations (Section 115(1a) SGB XI); showing results on your own site stays voluntary. Where C or D aspects exist, naming the finding, its cause and a dated measure carries further than silence.
- Claims of top marks, comparisons with other services and award-style badges invite legal challenge; factual statements with the inspection date and the source hold up, backed by six FAQ entries on the procedure, the result and how to complain.
What changes from July 2026
The legal basis stays where it was: Section 114 SGB XI governs the quality inspection, Section 115 SGB XI the publication of results. What is new are the instruments behind them. On 1 July 2026 the quality inspection guidelines for home care take effect in two parts: Part 1a for home care services and Part 1b for home support services (Medizinischer Dienst Bund). On the same date a new version of the quality standards and principles under Section 113 SGB XI applies, replacing the version of 24 October 2023 (Medizinischer Dienst Bund). The associated quality reporting agreement, known as QDVA Part 1a, was adopted on 9 December 2025 and also applies from 1 July 2026 (Medizinischer Dienst Bund). Additional feasibility rules under Section 114 (2a) SGB XI, adopted on 7 April 2026 and effective from 1 June 2026, govern the transition into practice (Medizinischer Dienst Bund).
The substantive shift is larger than the date suggests. The Medizinischer Dienst Bund describes it as follows: the quality inspection of home care services and home support services is being aligned considerably more strongly with outcome quality (Medizinischer Dienst Bund). Instead of a long list of individual criteria, the inspection team looks at comprehensive quality aspects and examines the quality of care within a sample of the people receiving care (Medizinischer Dienst Bund). What moves to the foreground is how the people being cared for are actually doing; what moves to the background is whether a form has been filed in the right place. Some aspects are not graded at all but discussed in an advisory capacity, for example cooperation between the service and relatives, and the handling of signs of violence, neglect or undersupply (Medizinischer Dienst Bund).
The inspection rhythm changes little for now. The regional associations of the long-term care funds arrange inspections at intervals of no more than one year (Section 114 (2) SGB XI); Section 114c SGB XI allows that interval to be extended where results are good, and in crisis situations of national or regional significance the interval may be extended by no more than one year (Section 114 (2a) SGB XI). Inspections are generally announced two working days in advance, while inspections prompted by a specific concern should be unannounced (Section 114a SGB XI). For home care services, inspectors may assess the quality of care in the home of the person receiving care with that person's consent (Section 114a SGB XI). Explaining these three points on your own website removes a worry that comes up regularly on the phone: will someone turn up unannounced at my mother's flat?
Quality aspects, not single criteria
Inspections assess cross-cutting quality aspects rather than a long list of individual criteria (Medizinischer Dienst Bund). For a website that means a result can no longer be sold as a grade - it has to be explained.
A sample of people receiving care
The inspection team examines the quality of care within a sample of the people receiving care (Medizinischer Dienst Bund). An assessment inside someone's home requires that person's consent (Section 114a SGB XI).
Advice instead of grading
Some aspects are discussed rather than graded, for example cooperation with relatives and the handling of signs of violence or undersupply (Medizinischer Dienst Bund).
The four categories in plain language
Why relatives search for results before they call
The audience is large. As of 31 December 2023, 5,688,473 people in Germany were classified as in need of long-term care under the long-term care insurance act (Statistisches Bundesamt). 4,888,882 of them, or 85.9 percent, were cared for at home (Statistisches Bundesamt). 1,100,672 people, that is 19.3 percent of all those affected, were cared for with the involvement of a home care service (Statistisches Bundesamt). Nationwide there are roughly 15,500 home care services to choose from (Statistisches Bundesamt). For relatives the decision is therefore a selection among many providers that look alike from the outside - and it is exactly in that situation that people search, compare and read.
What they find needs explaining. The quality report lists quality aspects and categories, not school grades. Anyone opening such a report for the first time sees terminology from nursing science and cannot tell whether a single point in category C is an alarm signal or a footnote. That is the gap a dedicated page can close: not by grading your own result, but by translating it. What was inspected? What does the system mean? Where is the original published? A provider that answers those three questions reads like an organisation with nothing to hide.
Timing matters just as much. The research happens before the first phone call, often in the evening, often on a phone, often under time pressure after a hospital stay. Delivering the explanation only during the first consultation is too late, because without it the consultation happens less often. We have described what relatives look for at this stage in more detail in content relatives expect on a care website.
The most common misreading of A to D
Building a dedicated Quality and Transparency page
Most care service websites treat quality as a collection of adjectives on the home page. That was already weak, and from July 2026 it becomes entirely ineffective, because the publicly available inspection result can be held up against it at any time. The workable alternative is a dedicated, continuously maintained sub-page with a clear name such as Quality and Transparency that does four things: state the current inspection status with a date, explain the system in everyday language, point to the official publication, and name a contact for questions. How such a page fits into the overall navigation without breaking the existing structure is covered in our article on structuring a care service website.
The key difference to a classic quality page is the direction of the argument. Instead of claiming how good you are, you show what was inspected and where the result can be read. Pointing to the official publication is not a risk, it is the strongest trust signal on the page: whoever points to the source themselves signals that they do not fear the comparison. Publication is handled by the regional associations of the long-term care funds; Section 115 (1a) SGB XI requires that results be published free of charge, in an understandable, clear and comparable form, both online and in another suitable form (Sozialgesetzbuch XI). The vdek additionally makes care providers and quality results available through its Pflegelotse directory (vdek).
- Inspection status with a date, for example: most recent routine inspection on 12 September 2026, information as of 27 July 2026
- A short explanation of the system: quality aspects instead of individual criteria, a sample of people receiving care, categories A to D (Medizinischer Dienst Bund)
- A clear statement that only C and D aspects enter the public report (Medizinischer Dienst Bund)
- A reference to the official publication by the regional associations of the long-term care funds under Section 115 (1a) SGB XI instead of grade-style advertising
- Your own comment from the 28-day window mirrored on the page as a quote or summary (vdek)
- A table of measures with topic, action, responsibility and target date wherever C or D aspects were identified
- A named contact for quality questions with a phone number and a call-back option
- A description of the complaints route inside the service and towards the responsible long-term care fund
| Feature | Promotional quality page | Quality and Transparency page |
|---|---|---|
| Core statement | Highest care quality, award-winning, family-run | Inspection status with date and source |
| Evidence | Adjectives without proof | Reference to the official publication |
| Handling criticism | Left out | C and D aspects named and explained |
| Currency | No visible date | Date per section, fixed review routine |
| Legal position | Contestable value judgements | Verifiable statements of fact |
| Effect on relatives | Interchangeable, not convincing | Comprehensible and easy to act on |
| Next step | Contact details only in the footer | Question or consultation offered in the text |
Preparing the 28-day window
Quality reporting is not a one-way process. The inspected organisation is given 28 days to add supplementary information and to comment on the quality report (vdek). In practice this window is regularly wasted, because the deadline lands in the middle of daily operations and nobody is prepared. Yet it is the only point in the entire procedure where the service itself may put into words how a finding should be understood. Anyone who starts writing that statement only once the report is on the table writes it under time pressure - and usually defensively.
Preparation here does not mean anticipating a result, it means having a structure ready. A text skeleton with four fields is enough: the facts, the interpretation, the action already taken, and the date on which its effectiveness will be reviewed. When the report arrives, the skeleton is filled in rather than invented. And that same text is the basis for the corresponding section on the website: what you explain to the regional associations should match what stands on your own page. Two different explanations of the same fact are the worst possible outcome. A comparable pattern applies to documentation topics in general, as shown in the article on explaining electronic service records on a care website.
- Before the inspection: assign responsibility for the comment - one person in the lead, one named deputy
- Days 1 to 3 after the report arrives: review findings, isolate C and D aspects, clarify the facts internally
- Days 4 to 10: describe causes instead of assigning blame, define measures, set target dates and owners
- Days 11 to 18: draft the comment, factual and without attacking the inspection team, every statement verifiable
- Days 19 to 24: professional and legal review, comparison with the planned website text
- Days 25 to 28: submit the comment within the deadline and prepare the website section in parallel
- After publication: publish the website section, set the date, and schedule an internal follow-up for the measures
What does not belong in a comment
When the result is C or D
The reflex is understandable: a deficit with a risk of negative consequences appears in the public report, so the website says nothing about it. The reflex is also wrong. The result is publicly accessible in any case, because Section 115 (1a) SGB XI obliges the regional associations of the long-term care funds to publish results online in an understandable, clear and comparable form (Sozialgesetzbuch XI). Staying silent hands the interpretation to others. Naming the finding, explaining the cause and putting a dated measure next to it changes your role: from the inspected party to the one doing the explaining.
Tone matters more than content here. Three sentences are often enough: what was found, what caused it, what has been done differently since. No relativising, no blame directed at the inspection team, no invocation of difficult circumstances. Relatives do not expect flawless reports, they expect honesty. An open account with concrete measures reads as more credible in practice than a quality page without a single finding, because the latter invites the suspicion that something is missing. Anchoring how you deal with criticism on your About us page turns it into an attitude rather than a one-off measure.
Name the finding
State the facts in one sentence, with the category and the inspection date. No paraphrasing, no playing down. If it is a C, write C - the public report contains only C and D aspects (Medizinischer Dienst Bund).
Explain the cause
Name a cause within your own sphere of influence: a process, onboarding, a documentation routine, communication within the team. External factors do not belong in the first line, because they read like an excuse.
Measure with a date
What was changed, since when it applies, who reviews its effectiveness and when. A date turns a statement of intent into a verifiable fact - and supplies the next reason to update the page.
The quality inspection of home care services and home support services is being aligned considerably more strongly with outcome quality.
Competition law limits for quality claims
Quality claims are advertising, and advertising in healthcare is tightly regulated. Two bodies of law apply in parallel: the German Act against Unfair Competition for misleading statements and inadmissible comparative advertising, and the Medicinal Products Advertising Act for claims about treatment. Turning an inspection result without C and D aspects into a top grade turns a statement of fact into a value judgement - and creates an opening that a competitor or an association can act against. The basics on imprint requirements, mandatory details and advertising limits are summarised in a legally sound care website: imprint and advertising limits.
- No top-grade claims: the quality report knows categories rather than grades and publishes only C and D aspects (Medizinischer Dienst Bund)
- No comparative statements about other services, neither by name nor as the best care service in the region
- No combination of inspection results with patient quotes about treatment success - that link is problematic under advertising law for healthcare
- No generalisation of a single inspection result across all service areas or all locations
- No promotion of an inspection result without a date, because outdated information reads as misleading
- No award or seal styling for a result that merely documents the absence of deficits
- No statements about future results, such as announcing an expected outcome without findings
Wording that holds up
FAQ block, structure and internal linking
A quality page without an FAQ block gives away reach. Relatives type their questions as full sentences, and answer engines prefer passages that answer one question compactly and with a source. Six questions are enough if they cover the three phases: how does the inspection work, what does the result mean, and what do I do if I want to complain? The complaints route belongs in there explicitly, because it proves that criticism is welcome. If you already run a general FAQ page, link the quality questions there rather than duplicating them.
- Six FAQ questions on the inspection process, the result and the complaints route, each answered in two to four sentences
- Structured data for the FAQ block, without the same question appearing several times across the site
- A link from every service page to the quality page, with descriptive anchor text instead of click here
- Links from the quality page back to the relevant service pages and to About us
- A named contact with a clickable phone number, not an image or plain text
- The page in the main navigation or at least in the service area of the footer
- Contrast, font sizes and keyboard operability checked so that older visitors can use the page
That last point is not a side issue. The people reading a quality page are older than average or reading under stress. Generous line spacing, sufficient contrast and clear structure decide whether the page is read to the end - the same requirements an accessible care website has to meet anyway. A four-column table full of technical terms is the worst choice here; a series of short paragraphs with subheadings works considerably better.
A maintenance routine for the quality page
A quality page ages faster than any other sub-page, because it is tied to a date. An inspection status from two years ago looks worse than no information at all, because it suggests nobody is paying attention. That is why the page belongs in a fixed routine with clear triggers. Four to six weeks of build-up and then a manageable maintenance effort of a few hours per quarter is a realistic frame (project experience).
| Trigger | What to check | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| New inspection report | Inspection status, date, explanation, list of measures | After every inspection |
| End of the 28-day window | Mirror your own comment on the website | As required (vdek) |
| Completed measure | Update the table of measures, note effectiveness | Monthly |
| Upcoming routine inspection | Refresh content, contacts and complaints route | Annually (Section 114 (2) SGB XI) |
| Change to the guidelines | Update terms, categories and legal references | As required |
| New questions on the phone | Extend or reword the FAQ block | Quarterly |
Whether the page works can be measured without slipping into vanity metrics: views of the quality page, the share of those visits that lead into a contact form or a call, and the questions that stop coming up on the phone. How to collect such figures cleanly and with minimal data is described in the article on measuring care website metrics. Knowing those numbers makes it easier to argue internally for the maintenance effort - and shows early when the quality page is getting lost in ongoing website care.
Implementation in 90 days
The sequence below is built so that something usable exists after every stage. It assumes the website already has a workable structure with maintained service pages; if not, that step comes first.
- Weeks 1 to 2: create the Quality and Transparency page, explain the A to D system in everyday language, set the date
- Week 3: add the inspection status with a date and point to the official publication under Section 115 (1a) SGB XI
- Week 4: name a contact for quality questions, link the phone number, add a call-back option
- Weeks 5 to 6: describe the complaints route - internally, towards the long-term care fund and towards the supervisory authority where applicable
- Week 7: create the text skeleton for the comment in the 28-day window and assign responsibility within the team
- Week 8: add the FAQ block with six questions and output structured data
- Weeks 9 to 10: set internal links from the service pages to the quality page and back
- Week 11: review wording against competition and healthcare advertising limits, remove superlatives
- Week 12: schedule the maintenance routine and set follow-ups for the date and the measures
Once the page is live, the next piece of trust-building is the presentation of the services themselves. A website for home care services only supports a quality page if scope of services, service area and availability are described just as precisely. For the overall build it is worth looking at the service overview for care providers so that inspection status, measures and FAQ fit together. If you would rather not build it in-house, scope and timing are best clarified in an initial conversation about your quality page.
Sources and studies