The Public Affairs Committee was due to consider the National Audit Office report on CQC today but this has now been postponed until January, due to a clash with Cameron's speech on Europe. I will be giving evidence to the PAC about the role of the regulator, where it might be specifically failing, and what might be a 'vision for the future' in terms of what regulation should actually be doing and achieving.
Obviously, we have now had multiple reports expressing concern about CQC, and the whistleblowing evidence to the mid Staffs Inquiry in November was quite damning, but at a recent meeting we held with their senior staff they sought to reassure us that everything was now on track and they were listening and responding to concerns.
As we now have several weeks before the hearing I would be interested in people's views on these matters and what you would ideally like to hear me saying on the day? All (repeatable) thoughts will be gratefully received. (CEO - Action on Elder Abuse)
Hi! Ruth from BASW here. It seems to me and our members that CQC was under resourced from the beginning (I raised this point at a launch event and was told yes there would be less money because there would be economies of scale but no compromise on standards (cue hollow laughter)) and has been woefully mismanaged. Social work and social care employees who moved to CQC felt marginalised. To be fair, CSCI, the predecessor organisation for social care inspection, had gone some way down the 'light touch' roadl - it seems to us that this is a mistake as if you ask an establishment to self assess they are unlikely to poiint out that they are failing their service users. It is my experience as a former manager of a Hospital social work team with links with residential care homes that a home's character can change very quickly from being good to being very poor with a new manager or owner and that only regular inspections (some unannounced) will pick this sort of thing up. This is borne out by recent CQC work on learning disability establishments following Winterbourne View - they found some very poor and dangerous practice in places they would not even have inspected before this scandal. I did wonder a propos Winterbourne View why visiting professionals (surely residents' placements were reviewed by funding PCTs or local councils) had not raised concerns - maybe they were only shown the good bits on a brief visit but I think reviewing officers should take some responsibility for having a good look round and chat with service users and staff - at the very least to be sure that the huge amounts of funding being provided are being used appropriately.
I would like CQC to be asked for clear evidence that their inspection regime is rigorous enough to pick up major and minor issues affecting the wellbeing of service users and that those inspecting have the appropriate knowledge, skills and values. They should have clear procedures for what to do if any level of poor practice or wrongdoing is found. They should talk with service users (using communication aids if necessary) and families. This seems to be the least one could ask and expect of an efficient and effective inspection body.
I'm also uncertain of the credibility of their Chief Exec (altho a social worker by background so it pains me to say this) because of Mid Staffs and now CQC failings.
Hope this is helpful. Good luck!
Ruth from BASW - you make an excellent point regarding professional confidence in someone who was much involved in the Mid-Staffs tragedy - I hope that BASW would take the same view in respect of other failing Managers who either become self-employed Consultants or who move to other Local Authorities (often to join with or recruit their 'mates').
Not only the CQC but also OFSTED need to take a far firmer line and expose these people who continue to amass huge pension pots whilst inflicting, at a minimum, significant damage to the morale of other staff.
'Failure has its rich rewards.'
My impression is that CQC has become an organisation more about satisfying its own internal protocols than an independent body seeking to ensure inspections ensure poor practice is highlighted and addressed. I can see no real value in the current arrangements as at least in appearance CQC seems more intent on demonstrating its own value and not so proactive in improving the quality of service user experiences. I have personally raised concerns with CQC and been told that the particular establishment had been inspected and had a good rating. At no point was I made to feel that I was being listened to, that I was being reassured that any wrongdoing post inspection would be looked into. This is a poor organisation, led poorly. The scandal is that CQC absorbed effective regulatory and inspection bodies and neutered these good bodies.
My questions would be why does CQC respond with suspicion to concern raised by the public?
Why is it intuitively suspicious of whistle blowers?
Is lack of resources the real reason for taking the decision to minimise unannounced inspections?
What relationships its senior managers have with senior managers of provider bodies?
How much time do inspectors actually spend in private with service users during inspections?
What arrangements are in place for them to speak with relatives and informal carers?
Thanks to those of you who have so far responded to this discussion thread, this is useful and helpful feedback.
The meeting is on 26th January so there is still plenty of time if other people have thoughts on key points to raise about CQC.