This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

2. Professor Steve Field

The grand inquisitor

Pulse Power 50 2015 logo 120x110

The reputation of the CQC chief inspector of primary care reached an all-time low with GPs this year, but there is no questioning his influence. As one nominator put it: ‘Undoubtedly the biggest impact on coal-face GPs – but for all the wrong reasons.’

The Birmingham GP incurred the wrath of his own profession with the misguided publication of internal CQC ‘intelligent monitoring’ reports for all practices. Practices that were rated in higher ‘risk’ categories were exposed on the front pages of national and local newspapers, even when some were found to be providing good care following an inspection.

Initially, after Pulse and others pointed out distortions and errors in the ratings – including one measure that was recorded completely the wrong way around – the CQC blamed the media reporting and said it had a ‘duty to be honest’.

But five months later, Professor Field apologised and removed the ratings. Nevertheless, for hundreds of practices the ‘risky’ label had already stuck.

And this completely overshadowed the good results that practices were getting under Professor Field’s new-style inspection regime. To date, more than 80% have been given a ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’rating.

Professor Field tells Pulse that his proudest recent achievement has been the ‘introduction of the first system for regulating GPs across England’ and that ‘it has been good to find many practices are good or outstanding’.

He has outlasted strong opposition this year. The RCGP called for an end to his ‘Ofsted-style’ ratings, while the BMA called for the whole CQC to be abolished.

In his defence of the inspection regime, he said: ‘When more than one in seven general practices is not delivering the care that patients have every right to expect, now is not the time for us to put a halt on our inspections.

‘In the last few weeks alone, we have found some seriously deficient primary care, which has led to us cancelling the registrations of some practices, in the interests of protecting the safety and quality of care for people who use these services.’

Professor Field is already making plans to develop the inspections after next year. He says: ‘I have started to look at how we will develop the regulatory model for GPs and for integrated systems post September 2016. We look forward to consulting the profession, patients and the public on how we develop our ideas. These groups have been integral in helping us develop the way we inspect.’

This may involve increased costs for practices, as the Treasury insists that all central funding for regulation is phased out, with some saying fees may have to double.

However, there are signs that the chief inspector is scaling back his ambitions. In a recent interview, Professor Field hinted that he was considering a move towards a more ‘light-touch’ regime, with resources concentrated on ‘encouraging improvement’ in practices with known problems.

And despite the grassroots objections to the CQC, Professor Field has strong support from the health secretary. Jeremy Hunt said recently: ‘we make absolutely no apology for giving the public clear information for the first time on the quality of their local GP services’.

He added: ‘To halt inspections now would be a big mistake, and slow down the process of improvement for those surgeries that aren’t giving the public the high standards of care they deserve.’

Like it or not, Professor Field is going to be a fixture of GP life for some time to come.

<<< Back to Power 50

Rate this article 

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (12)

  • No one has made more GPs miserable without a rosette pinned to their lapel. You're a turncoat, Field. Karma will get you in the end.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated

  • cqc are pure maliciousness

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I have nothing good to say

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Funny how the one judging us no longer does any general practice himself. "All animals are equal, but..."

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This guy is working purely for a knighthood;
    used to be a VTS trainee in his "patch" in brum;

    I wrote him an email in 2007-8 about the dearth of partnerships in the area for younger GP's and what he was doing about it (i believe he was at the helm of a certain royal college back in those days) and im still awaiting his reply!!!!

    i think maybe this year 2015 he'll get back to me (im an eternal optimist). Anyway ive long since moved on and am working abroad and life's never been better!

    sometimes these poker faced establishment figures actually help you in a strange kind of way........when you see how most of them only seem to be interested in themselves you simply play them at their own game.......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Like so many in these sort of lists, so far removed from front line GP (and thus reality) that he no longer has any idea what the crap he's shovelling is doing to morale..Has CQC improved the life of my Has it contributed to four early retirements of our most experienced partners..hell, yes.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The research team of a group of newspapers regularly makes available (on the websites of these newspapers) an on-line tool for ranking all the GP practices in Britain according to key responses in the National GP Patient Survey. One way of accessing this tool is at

    If you put in Steve Field's own practice (Bellevue Medical Centre) it is currently ranked as 6,843 out of 7,751 practices. The practice's score for patients' trust in the doctor that they see is especially low.

    'The mote in your own eye?'

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Can anybody actually evidence how Field has improved either patient care or practice standards? Well, that's a big fat zero!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated

  • Executor and cloudy incentives. Someone has to do it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Unfortunately has done great harm
    Arrogant and out of touch

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say