This is just half the story. Take it from one who knows! Service inspections, which used to be carried out by the Social Services Inspectorate and were continued by successor organisations including CQC, have virtually disappeared. There is now no national overview of adults' services. Although some of these reports were anodyne in nature, there were also inspections which rattled the cages of complacent local authorities. (See some of those in the West Midlands).
CQC began its life by removing all previous inspection reports from its database - an act of contempt for its predecessors which beggars belief, as I have found that inspection reports from 20 years ago can still have some validity - if you don't believe me, read some of the Audit Commission Joint Reviews from 10 years ago and see if you recognise the authorities. I have been "censored" before on this forum for alluding to the record of the senior managers of CQC, so I will not comment, other than to say that you can google their names and find some very interesting stories. Or just read any copy of "Private Eye" from the last year or so.
CQC is hopelessly mismanaged by a bunch of arrogant incompetents, and staff morale is at rock bottom. Please let's go back to the local inspection units. At least most of them did take action on shoddy providers, supported by local councillors. Yes, one or two were a bit half hearted and in the pockets of the providers, but that was a tiny percentage of the situation nationally, not as now, the whole picture. Better to scrap CQC entirely, save a whole lot of money, and replace it with the care equivalent of "Tripadvisor".and a revised version of the local inspection units with proper backing from local people.
topbananaandrew: This is just half the story. Take it from one who knows! Service inspections, which used to be carried out by the Social Services Inspectorate and were continued by successor organisations including CQC, have virtually disappeared. There is now no national overview of adults' services. Although some of these reports were anodyne in nature, there were also inspections which rattled the cages of complacent local authorities. (See some of those in the West Midlands). CQC began its life by removing all previous inspection reports from its database - an act of contempt for its predecessors which beggars belief, as I have found that inspection reports from 20 years ago can still have some validity - if you don't believe me, read some of the Audit Commission Joint Reviews from 10 years ago and see if you recognise the authorities. I have been "censored" before on this forum for alluding to the record of the senior managers of CQC, so I will not comment, other than to say that you can google their names and find some very interesting stories. Or just read any copy of "Private Eye" from the last year or so. CQC is hopelessly mismanaged by a bunch of arrogant incompetents, and staff morale is at rock bottom. Please let's go back to the local inspection units. At least most of them did take action on shoddy providers, supported by local councillors. Yes, one or two were a bit half hearted and in the pockets of the providers, but that was a tiny percentage of the situation nationally, not as now, the whole picture. Better to scrap CQC entirely, save a whole lot of money, and replace it with the care equivalent of "Tripadvisor".and a revised version of the local inspection units with proper backing from local people.
a brave post!
I think you should also factor in the impact of the change in legsilation, the need to manage reregistrations and the fact that CQC now regulate dentists, ambulance providers etc
Some central roles have been lost through redundancy with reorganisations planned to stay ahead of any culling of quangos still taking place.
Repeated criticism of the regulator does little to enhance the confidence of relatives who leave vulnerable loved ones in the care of regulated providers. This has been a bad year for bad care stories with Castlebeck etc. I am sure relatives must have been very concerned.
I hope 2012 sees some real chnage, some good news stories and confidence in the sector.
i agree it has become an incredibly bad service. there seems to be no consistency in what they say or do, would really welcome the old style local inspectors who knew the areas (and their unique structure and pressure), the services in depth and how they fitted into the whole, and often the clients themselves. not sure if this is what you mean by 'in the pocket of the provider' but all local inspectors saw themselves as there to support clients and staff; for example, we invited them to occassional staff meetings and clients invited them to their meetings. we felt this gave clients and staff a much greater access to making complaints or concerns if ever needed---they felt the inspectors were there to support them, they knew their name and face----wheras now we have a facless, nameless series of numbers to press even before its possible to get to a human, who will then pass you on to a stranger. i do wonder how many people nationally have been unable to complain/express concerns because they couldnt navigate ther system. also ('in our pockets?) they would offer advice if they saw minor errors in our service---for example not enough detail in a policy-- and let us improve this -rather than going away and writting a negative in a report. and we could ask advice without feeling we always have to be on the defensive. to give an example, our clients used to each do a small task around what is after all their hmeo (ie dusting the lounge once a week) . nobody was forced but everyone did it because they felt a pride in doing so. no client did it alone but always with a staff member. the local inspectors thought it was a really good example of supporting independence, pride in self etc and suggested the idea to other homes. long distance inspector, who didnt know clients, made us stop it as it was like 'slave labour' (even though took more, not less, staff time) now clients sit in the lounge lifting their feet to let staff hoover rounfd them.