This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

CAMHS won't see you now

Calibrate this, CQC: I'm not spending £7,000 on scales

  • Print
  • 12
  • Save

‘After two o’clock we’re off to catch up with the latest goings on in Ambridge. But now on Radio Four, it’s time for the news…’ Bip bip bip bip bip beeeep.

A few moments later there was a knock at the door.

‘Come to sort out your calibration, Doc,’ he said. ‘Shouldn’t take more than a couple of minutes.’

‘And what time, exactly, do you call this?’

‘Two o’clock Guv, spot on.’

‘Two o’clock plus 17 seconds, to be precise. For a job that takes 120 seconds turning up 17 seconds late represents an error of 8.5%, give or take.’

‘Scarcely matters though, does it, Doc? I mean, not in real life.’

‘Real life doesn’t enter into it. If real life were anything to go by you’d not be here, calibrating a set of scales installed at the CQC’s insistence and at vast expense. Real life doesn’t require me to measure the body weight of my patients accurate to the weight of a ruby-throated hummingbird either way.’

‘Come again?’

‘It’s like this. However badly I perform at the village fete’s “Guess the weight of the cake” contest every year I can still spot a patient who’s eaten more than their fair share of the exhibits as soon as they walk into the room. There’s the way their shadow blots out all the natural light as they loom in the doorway, the way the chair creaks and groans as they take a seat. It’s the elasticated waistband to their trousers, the gravitational pull they exert upon objects in the room that aren’t nailed to the planet. It’s a knack that I’ve developed over the years… “You,” I tell them, “appear to be a few pounds over your fighting weight”.’

‘How about patients who are on a diet? How are you going to monitor their progress if your scales aren’t accurate to two decimal places?’ he asked. I called upon Bolton-based funnyman Peter Kay to provide a much needed reality check: ‘You been on a diet for a week and you’ve lost a pound? A pound? Jesus! I sh*t a pound…’

Scattered around this building there are roughly fifteen sets of scales, ranging from high street versions retailing at twenty quid through to the old-fashioned type used to weigh boxers with big footprints (the scales, that is, not the boxers).

We also have one pair of Monster Scales designed to weigh monsters (bipeds that weigh more than 140kg) to an accuracy of plus or minus one gram. These cost £500 and according to the CQC we need to buy fourteen more sets in order to ‘comply’ or face the consequences. Our Practice Manager tells me that all the sets of scales in our building, apart from the Monster Scales, are not CQC compliant, but if we replaced the high-street versions we’d have to do it with the £500 model.

Now I can think of lots of good ways to spend £7,000, some of which involve long haul flights, economy-sized bottles of baby lotion and two of the checkout girls at Waitrose. But none of them involve weighing morbidly obese patients to meaningless degrees of accuracy that would put a particle physicist to shame.

Henceforth, the scales in our consulting rooms are not pieces of medical equipment per se, they are decorative items. If a patient should happen to step on a set on the way to or from the examination couch and if, using my clinical judgement, the reading indicates that they should be more accurately weighed, then I’ll direct them to the Monster Room. Or maybe I’ll just ask Mrs Jackson, if she’s around the waiting area. She’s usually spot on when guessing the weight of the cake at the fete.

And if the CQC have a problem with that, they can write a report and they can feel free to bung it into my shredder, if theirs is full.

Dr Tony Copperfield is a GP in Essex. You can email him at and follow him on Twitter @DocCopperfield.

Readers' comments (12)

  • Good man!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I hope that it's not true that the CQC have insisted on this.
    Bloody Hell if it is.
    My grandmother would say that the word has gone potty.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • this is an urban myth on the part of your practice manager

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thank you Copperfield for cheering me up - we have just paid over £500 to have our equipment calibrated/checked, including £26. to check a couch (!!??) and £23 to calibrate a mercury sphyg (which if you think about it, is about as logical as calibrating a ruler). What a rip-off.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Had you actually checked with the CQC you would have found this to be all nonsense as usual but it would have made for a far less funny article.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Really easy to see who the actual working clinicians are in tyhe replies and the CQC drones who I fear actually believe that they are carrying out a useful and neccesary role which is beneficial to patients.
    I thought that they would have been too busy with their training issues on confidentiality to have time to respont in such an article !!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is even more amazing, if you believe all you read in Pulse, that a ‘working clinician’ has time to read and respond to this. This sort of ill-informed opinion is counterproductive and does nothing for the reputation of the beleaguered medical profession.
    As a CQC drone I should advise you to check these reports out directly with the CQC before you spend needless amounts of public money on rumours. I have heard that CSUs (Commissioning Support Units), that used to be PCTs are making demands on GPs on behalf of the CQC, that are not required by the CQC.
    There is no need for any conflict between CQC inspectors (many of whom were working clinicians themselves) and GPs, unless of course the emptiest vessels continue to make the most noise.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Look - it's just a funny piece.

    Don't get wound up.

    Unless it hits a nerve that is.....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We have just had a letter from trading standards wanting to come and check our scales to ensure they are calibrated. When speaking to them they have made reference to a project back in 2008 where they checked secondary care. Being sceptical I think this is another CQC ploy via local councils.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Some councils have tried to check scales, as if we are selling bananas. We had a humourless being telling me our scales were all wrong - but the clinical firm that service them said a) she did not know how to use one set and b) they were within the NHS tolerances. I believe they were only meant to do this as a one off project way back. As for CQC, we too use the "monstor scales" when clinically necessary and until told otherwise, are not replacing anything

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say

  • Print
  • 12
  • Save

From: Copperfield

Dr Tony Copperfield is a jobbing GP in Essex with more than a few chips on his shoulder