Turn Care Home SEO Tasks Into Checks Your Team Can Prove Are Complete

This checklist is for care home managers, marketing coordinators, admissions teams, website owners, and SEO staff who need a repeatable way to audit a residential care website and its search presence. It is designed to turn broad recommendations into checks that can be evidenced, assigned, corrected, and re-tested.

Use it when families can already find some information about the home but the team is unsure whether important pages, listings, contact details, care information, reputation signals, and search controls are accurate and working as intended. The checklist is not a substitute for regulatory, clinical, legal, safeguarding, accessibility, privacy, or technical specialist review where those disciplines are required.

The checklist assumes the home already has a website and a Google Business Profile. If either asset does not exist or is not controlled by the current operator, treat establishing legitimate ownership and an accurate public presence as a prerequisite rather than pretending the later checks can compensate for it.

For every item, capture Evidence, mark Pass or Fail, assign Severity, name the Owner, write the Corrective action, and complete a Validation check. A task is not finished merely because someone made a change; it is finished when the same evidence source confirms the intended state.

Use red for a failure that blocks crawling, indexing, secure access, accurate contact information, profile control, or a core family journey. Use amber for a meaningful weakness that should be corrected but does not currently block the core path. Use green when the available evidence supports a pass. These are internal triage labels, not Google classifications.

The source worksheet used planning labels of Quick Win for 1-4 hours, Standard for 1-2 days, and an observation window of 4-8 weeks. Keep those bands only as inherited planning context where useful. They do not prove effort, ranking impact, enquiry impact, or a time-to-result for any individual home.

Work in dependency order. Correct access, indexing, security, factual listing, and broken-contact problems before expanding content or pursuing external mentions. When a failure crosses teams, assign the owner who can actually change the affected system and a separate reviewer if someone else must verify the result.

Google Business Profile and public-location controls

• [ ] Profile ownership is controlled by the current operator.
  Evidence: Save the account view showing legitimate management access and the live profile identity.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when the authorised team can manage the correct live profile; fail when access is missing, disputed, or attached to the wrong location.
  Severity: Red if the current operator cannot control a critical profile; amber for non-blocking permission cleanup.
  Owner: Authorised profile manager.
  Corrective action: Recover, request, or regularise legitimate access through the available Google process without creating an unnecessary duplicate.
  Validation: Reopen the live profile from the authorised account and confirm management access remains active.
• [ ] Business name matches the real public identity.
  Evidence: Compare the live profile name with the website, signage, and other authoritative business records available to the operator.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when the name accurately represents the home without promotional additions; fail when it is materially inconsistent or padded with search terms.
  Severity: Red for a misleading identity; amber for a minor correctable inconsistency.
  Owner: Profile manager with operational approval.
  Corrective action: Correct the public name to the genuine business identity.
  Validation: Confirm the corrected name is visible on the live profile and agrees with the website.
• [ ] Address and phone details are accurate.
  Evidence: Compare the live profile, website contact page, and current operational records.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when a family can reach the correct location and phone contact from either source; fail when a material discrepancy could send them to the wrong place or number.
  Severity: Red for wrong core contact details; amber for non-material formatting inconsistencies.
  Owner: Profile manager and website owner.
  Corrective action: Correct the inaccurate source while preserving the real location and working contact path.
  Validation: Recheck both public sources and place a normal contact test if appropriate.
• [ ] Opening information and relevant service details are accurate.
  Evidence: Compare the profile fields with current operational information approved by the home.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when the live information reflects what the home can actually support; fail when outdated fields could mislead a family.
  Severity: Red for materially misleading availability or contact information; amber for incomplete but non-critical details.
  Owner: Profile manager with operational input.
  Corrective action: Update inaccurate fields without adding services the home does not provide.
  Validation: Reopen the live profile and compare the published fields with the approved source.
• [ ] Profile category choices describe the real organisation.
  Evidence: Save the current category configuration and compare it with the home's actual operation.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when categories are relevant and supportable; fail when a category misrepresents the organisation.
  Severity: Amber unless the mismatch creates material public confusion.
  Owner: Profile manager.
  Corrective action: Select the most accurate available categories rather than choosing labels purely for perceived search advantage.
  Validation: Confirm the live profile displays a defensible category configuration.
• [ ] Profile imagery accurately represents the home and is approved for publication.
  Evidence: Review the live gallery against current approved assets and consent records where people are identifiable. The source worksheet retained at least 20 images as an internal completeness checkpoint, not an official Google threshold.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when published images are current, relevant, and appropriately authorised; fail when imagery is misleading, obsolete, or lacks required approval.
  Severity: Red for a consent or material accuracy problem; amber for stale or weak coverage.
  Owner: Profile manager and the person responsible for image approval.
  Corrective action: Remove or replace unsuitable imagery and use only approved, representative assets.
  Validation: Review the live gallery again and confirm the retained assets match the approved set.
• [ ] Website performance is tested on representative pages.
  Evidence: Save Google PageSpeed Insights results for the homepage and important care or contact pages. The inherited worksheet used under 3 seconds as an internal performance checkpoint, not an official ranking guarantee.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when pages are usable and the test does not reveal a material performance defect affecting the core journey; fail when evidence shows a reproducible issue that materially impairs loading or interaction.
  Severity: Red when a core page is materially unusable; amber for significant but non-blocking performance debt.
  Owner: Developer or technical site owner.
  Corrective action: Address the specific measured causes, such as oversized assets, blocking resources, or inefficient templates, without removing information families need.
  Validation: Repeat the same tests after implementation and save the new results.
• [ ] Mobile layout supports the core family journey.
  Evidence: Test navigation, care information, location details, phone links, forms, and key controls on a phone in portrait mode.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when the core path is readable and usable without broken controls; fail when a visitor cannot complete an important action.
  Severity: Red for a blocked journey; amber for limited layout friction.
  Owner: Developer or front-end owner.
  Corrective action: Repair responsive layout, control sizing, overlapping elements, or inaccessible interactions.
  Validation: Repeat the same mobile path on the corrected build.
• [ ] Secure access is configured correctly.
  Evidence: Confirm the public site loads securely (URL starts with https://) and that normal navigation does not fall back to an insecure version.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when priority pages load securely without browser warnings; fail when secure access is broken or inconsistent.
  Severity: Red for security warnings on priority pages.
  Owner: Developer or hosting owner.
  Corrective action: Repair certificate, redirect, or host configuration causing insecure access.
  Validation: Reopen priority pages in a fresh browser session and confirm the warning is gone.
• [ ] XML sitemap reflects intended indexable pages.
  Evidence: Compare the current sitemap with the set of public pages the team intends search engines to discover and review its Search Console status.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when important intended pages are represented and obvious non-public or broken destinations are not being promoted; fail when the sitemap materially conflicts with the intended public site.
  Severity: Red if important discovery is blocked by a broader indexing problem; amber for sitemap hygiene issues.
  Owner: Technical SEO or developer.
  Corrective action: Correct sitemap generation or page inclusion rules.
  Validation: Re-fetch the sitemap and recheck the relevant Search Console evidence.
• [ ] Crawl directives match the publishing intent.
  Evidence: Review robots.txt and page-level indexing directives on representative priority pages.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when important public pages are not unintentionally blocked and non-public areas are handled as intended; fail when directives conflict with the publishing plan.
  Severity: Red when a priority page or section is unintentionally blocked.
  Owner: Technical SEO or developer.
  Corrective action: Remove accidental blocks or correct conflicting directives without exposing content that should remain private.
  Validation: Re-test the affected URLs and confirm the intended crawl and indexing state.

Page meaning and search presentation

• [ ] Homepage title identifies the home and relevant location context.
  Evidence: Inspect the title element and compare it with the page's actual purpose.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when the title accurately identifies the page without stuffing or unsupported claims; fail when it is missing, duplicated, misleading, or generic.
  Severity: Amber unless the title materially misrepresents the organisation.
  Owner: Editorial or SEO owner.
  Corrective action: Write a concise, accurate title that reflects the real home and page purpose.
  Validation: Inspect the published source again and confirm the intended title is present.
• [ ] Main care pages have distinct titles and descriptions.
  Evidence: Export or inspect the title and meta description for each priority page. The inherited worksheet described a meta description as 1-2 sentences; use that only as a drafting convention, not a ranking rule.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when each field accurately reflects its page and differs where the page purpose differs; fail when important pages reuse misleading or generic text.
  Severity: Amber for duplication or weak presentation; red only when a snippet field reflects materially wrong information.
  Owner: Editorial or SEO owner.
  Corrective action: Rewrite fields to describe the actual care information on the page and avoid promises the page cannot support.
  Validation: Reinspect the source and compare the new wording with the published page.
• [ ] Heading structure makes the page easy to understand.
  Evidence: Inspect headings and compare them with the visible content hierarchy. The source worksheet used one H1, followed by H2 and H3 headings, as a simple editorial convention.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when headings describe the page structure clearly and accessibly; fail when headings are absent, misleading, or used only as visual styling.
  Severity: Amber for confusing structure; red if the page becomes materially difficult to navigate or interpret.
  Owner: Editorial owner and developer when templates control headings.
  Corrective action: Reorganise headings around real sections and user questions without forcing a keyword into every heading.
  Validation: Reinspect the rendered page and source structure.
• [ ] Care pages explain genuine services with decision-useful detail.
  Evidence: Compare each page with the home's approved service information and note generic, duplicated, missing, or unsupported statements.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when a family can understand what the home actually provides and how to ask for more information; fail when the page could describe almost any home or invents unsupported services.
  Severity: Red for materially inaccurate care information; amber for generic or incomplete content.
  Owner: Editorial owner with operational review.
  Corrective action: Replace generic copy with accurate home-specific information and remove unsupported claims.
  Validation: Re-read the page against the approved source information before publication.
• [ ] Genuine location information is present where it helps a family.
  Evidence: Review whether the real home page or location page gives useful information about the actual place, contact path, and visit context.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when location content is accurate and useful; fail when the page relies on nominal place names with little genuine local information.
  Severity: Amber unless the location is materially wrong.
  Owner: Editorial and local SEO owner.
  Corrective action: Improve the page for the real location rather than creating thin pages for every named service area.
  Validation: Compare the published location details with current operational records.
• [ ] Core name, address, and phone details agree across important sources.
  Evidence: Compare the website and Google Business Profile with relevant care and public directories already associated with the home.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when the core facts identify the same organisation and location; fail when a mismatch could confuse a family or system.
  Severity: Red for wrong location or phone details; amber for non-material formatting differences.
  Owner: Local SEO owner or profile manager.
  Corrective action: Correct factual inconsistencies at the source that is wrong.
  Validation: Recheck the same references after changes have propagated.
• [ ] Directory coverage is relevant rather than volume-driven.
  Evidence: Save the set of meaningful care or local directories where the home is already listed. The source worksheet retained 3-5 care-specific directories as an internal coverage example, not an official search requirement.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when existing listings are legitimate, accurate, and relevant; fail when important existing listings are wrong or when the strategy relies on low-quality bulk submissions.
  Severity: Amber unless a wrong listing creates material public confusion.
  Owner: Local SEO owner.
  Corrective action: Correct relevant listings and avoid indiscriminate directory creation.
  Validation: Revisit the same live listings and confirm the corrected facts.
• [ ] Phone formatting preserves a working contact path.
  Evidence: Compare displayed and linked phone numbers across the website and important profiles, including any +44 and 0 presentation differences used for the same real number.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when every public version reaches the correct contact destination; fail when formatting produces a wrong or broken number.
  Severity: Red for a broken contact path; amber for harmless presentation inconsistency.
  Owner: Website and profile owners.
  Corrective action: Standardise the displayed format where useful and repair any incorrect link target.
  Validation: Test the published phone links and compare the visible number with operational records.
• [ ] Internal links guide families to relevant care and contact information.
  Evidence: Follow important links from the homepage and care pages and record broken, misleading, or missing paths.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when a reader can move logically between relevant information and contact options; fail when key links are broken or point to unrelated pages.
  Severity: Red for a broken core contact or care path; amber for weaker contextual linking.
  Owner: Editorial or website owner.
  Corrective action: Repair broken destinations and add only contextually useful internal links.
  Validation: Re-run the same click path after publication.

Reviews, public trust, and family information

• [ ] Review collection is neutral, consistent, and non-gated.
  Evidence: Save the current review-request wording and eligibility process. The source worksheet retained at least 5 visible Google reviews as an internal checkpoint only; it is not an official ranking threshold.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when eligible customers or families are asked consistently for honest feedback without incentives, discouraging negative feedback, or selecting only satisfied people; fail when the process gates or manipulates review participation.
  Severity: Red for review gating or deceptive incentives; amber for an inconsistent but neutral process.
  Owner: Operations or customer-experience owner.
  Corrective action: Replace selective requests with a neutral, documented process.
  Validation: Review the live request workflow and confirm the same neutral invitation is used for all eligible participants.
• [ ] Review responses are appropriate and privacy-aware.
  Evidence: Sample current responses and compare them with the organisation's approved communication and privacy approach.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when responses are respectful, avoid unnecessary personal details, and do not argue with reviewers; fail when responses disclose sensitive information, threaten, mislead, or pressure a reviewer.
  Severity: Red for a serious privacy or conduct concern; amber for tone or consistency issues.
  Owner: Authorised communications or operations owner.
  Corrective action: Update response guidance and correct problematic owned responses where appropriate.
  Validation: Re-sample future responses against the documented standard.
• [ ] CQC information is represented accurately.
  Evidence: Compare any website reference to the live public CQC information and the home's current records.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when wording, status, and links are accurate and not overstated; fail when the website misstates a rating, registration, or regulatory position.
  Severity: Red for materially wrong regulatory information.
  Owner: Editorial owner with appropriate regulatory or operational review.
  Corrective action: Correct the website to match the authoritative current information.
  Validation: Recheck the published page against the same authoritative source.
• [ ] About and service content uses supportable claims.
  Evidence: Review care philosophy, staff descriptions, accreditations, service claims, and facility descriptions against approved internal records.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when claims are specific and supportable; fail when credentials, outcomes, services, or experience are overstated or unattributed.
  Severity: Red for materially misleading claims; amber for vague or incomplete trust information.
  Owner: Editorial owner with the relevant operational reviewer.
  Corrective action: Remove, qualify, or substantiate unsupported statements.
  Validation: Complete a factual sign-off before republishing.
• [ ] Contact information is complete and functional.
  Evidence: Test the form, phone, address, hours, and email pathways that the page presents.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when each published route reaches the intended team or destination; fail when a core method is missing, broken, or points to outdated information.
  Severity: Red for a broken primary enquiry path; amber for secondary contact defects.
  Owner: Website owner and admissions or operations contact owner.
  Corrective action: Repair the failed destination or update the published information.
  Validation: Repeat a normal test of each corrected contact method.
• [ ] Family questions are answered where they affect a decision.
  Evidence: Compare the website with recurring questions received by admissions or operations and identify missing decision-useful answers.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when important questions about the home, visiting, admissions, care availability, and fees are addressed accurately or routed to a clear contact point; fail when families must guess or the page gives unsupported answers.
  Severity: Amber unless the missing information creates a material safety, regulatory, or factual problem.
  Owner: Editorial owner with admissions or operational input.
  Corrective action: Add clear, approved answers or a transparent contact route. FAQ content can help readers, but do not assume FAQPage markup will create a Google FAQ rich result.
  Validation: Recheck the revised page against the source questions and approved responses.
• [ ] Resource content exists for a real reader need.
  Evidence: Review the resource or blog area and map each article to a genuine family question or operational update. The inherited worksheet referenced 3 or more articles as an internal completeness example, not a ranking requirement.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when published resources are accurate, maintained, and useful; fail when the section consists mainly of generic filler or stale claims.
  Severity: Amber unless inaccurate content creates a material risk.
  Owner: Editorial owner.
  Corrective action: Update, consolidate, or remove weak resources and prioritise topics supported by real reader needs.
  Validation: Re-review the published set for accuracy, ownership, and usefulness.
• [ ] Legal, privacy, and credential references are current where used.
  Evidence: Check footer policies, staff credentials, care certifications, badges, and similar trust references against the organisation's current approved records.
  Pass/Fail: Pass when each reference is current, attributable, and used in the right context; fail when an expired, inaccurate, or unsupported claim remains public.
  Severity: Red for a materially misleading legal, regulatory, or credential claim; amber for stale supporting information.
  Owner: Relevant policy, compliance, operational, or editorial owner.
  Corrective action: Correct or remove unsupported references and route specialist matters to the appropriate reviewer.
  Validation: Recheck the published page against the approved record.

Prioritise failures by dependency and severity, not by the hope that a single task will cause a ranking jump. Red technical access, security, profile-control, factual contact, and materially inaccurate care-information failures should normally be addressed before lower-risk editorial or authority work because later improvements depend on a stable, accurate public foundation.

START HERE - High-severity failures with direct ownership

• Restore legitimate control of the Google Business Profile and correct wrong core facts.
• Repair blocked, broken, insecure, or materially unusable priority pages.
• Correct wrong phone, address, contact, service, or regulatory information.
• Replace any gated review-request process. The inherited worksheet used an outreach example of 5-10 recent family members; retain that only as a workload example, and ask eligible customers consistently for honest feedback without incentives or sentiment screening.

DO SECOND - Meaningful content and local corrections

• Rewrite weak titles, descriptions, headings, and service copy where the evidence shows a mismatch with the real page purpose.
• Use the inherited 2-3 article example only as a content-planning batch if those resources answer real family questions; it is not a required publishing cadence.
• Correct relevant directory inconsistencies and improve genuine location information for the actual home.
• Implement structured data only when it accurately describes visible page content and is appropriate for the page; do not present markup as a guaranteed visibility mechanism.

DO AFTER THE FOUNDATION PASSES - Measurement and authority work

• Review legitimate referring domains and pursue external references only where there is a genuine editorial or organisational reason to mention the home.
• Confirm analytics or other measurement tools record the actions the team actually needs to evaluate, subject to the site's privacy and consent requirements.
• Create richer media such as a tour only when it is accurate, useful, approved for publication, and supported by appropriate consent.

The source previously published an observed 20-40 percent local-pack visibility improvement within 8-12 weeks after its quick-win tier. No supporting source URL appears in this JSON, so treat that figure as historical editorial context requiring source reconciliation, not as a verified benchmark, causal claim, forecast, or promise. Validate this home's work against its own before-and-after evidence instead.

This page contains all 25 operational checks in a format your team can print or copy into its task system. Keep the evidence, pass or fail result, severity, owner, corrective action, and validation status together so a reviewer can understand why an item was closed.

For each assigned item, record:

• The evidence source and date checked
• The pass or fail decision and severity
• The person or supplier responsible for the correction
• The corrective action actually taken
• The validation evidence used to close the item

Revisit completed checks after material website, profile, service, ownership, or operational changes. Do not reopen work merely to satisfy a fixed posting cadence or arbitrary activity target; reopen it when the underlying evidence has changed or the previous validation is no longer reliable.