This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pul jul aug2020 cover 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

Independents' Day

Majority of practices could be inspected just every five years, suggests Field

Exclusive GP practices which are rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by the CQC could be inspected less frequently, the regulator’s chief inspector of general practice Professor Field has suggested.

In an interview with Pulse, Professor Field says he will be consulting with practices on the regularity of inspections, and that the better rated practices may not need to be inspected for three to five years after initial inspection. 

Under the previous regime, it was intended for all practices to be inspected every two years. But, if Professor Field’s suggestions are implemented, then ‘good’ practices - which make up the majority - will be inspected less frequently.

Professor Field added that there would be no major changes brought in until all practices are inspected at least once, but that he wanted to ‘reduce the burden on practices as much as he can.’

He said he wants the CQC to work in partnership with providers – where practices are informing the regulator of ‘where they are at’ and providing ‘lots of information which will reduce the need to inspect.’

The comments back up previous suggestions made by Professor Field – where he suggested that the CQC needed to move to a ‘more lighter touch of regulation’ – in a move which could see the CQC to plug more resources into practices which ‘aren’t as good’.

But Professor Field also indicated that there would be no major change to GP inspections before all practices have been rated once. The CQC had been planning to inspect all practices by September 2016, but there have been suggestions this target would not be met.

Professor Field said: ‘There are others ways of predicting when practices go wrong, we monitor complaints, and under the Duty of Candour rule practices have to report to us issues. We listen to CCGs, Healthwatch, we monitor the data through intelligent monitoring, which monitoring and prediction have proved behind the scenes very good.

‘If you have put all that together, the question is what’s the frequency of re-inspection – the answer is probably somewhere between three and five years for practices which are rated good or outstanding. My gut feeling is you’ll go into outstanding practices less frequently than good – and less frequently than require improvement and inadequate.’

He went on to add that he will be consulting on the regularity of re-inspecting good practices.

‘We will be consulting and working with the profession to see whether that is where we move to – because I want to reduce the burden on practices as much as I possibly can,’ he said.

Readers' comments (7)

  • Excellent news, so we'll get a refund of our fees if we aren't inspected.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sounds like an admission of defeat to me. 'We're unlikely to manage to inspect everyone for 5 years anyway, so we'll suggest that this is ok'. Wish we could move the goal posts like this.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Would this also reduce the financial burden on general practice?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Three years is too short an interval for the full, waste of a day, inspection for practices deemed to be satisfactory (good or outstanding) unless any genuine and potentially significant concerns are raised in the interim. The difference between "good" and "outstanding" is something known only to CQC and should not be used to determine inspection interval. Five years should be adequate for purpose (if CQC trusts its own reports) and should reduce the amount we have to pay for the privilege (as if that'll ever happen). Alternatively, once every practice has had a CQC visitation, repeat visits could be determined solely by initial report (if thought to need improvement), genuine concerns raised or significant change in personnel.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    There is a quite popular saying in Hong Kong politics,'Today's version of me has overthrown the yesterday's version.'

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am quite happy to be consulted by Professor Field about the frequency of CQC inspection of my practice. I would have thought once in every 500 years would be about right. I will also provide him with an extremely clean biscuit.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Two points
    A. The definition of "good" with the NEW format of CQC scoring is vague. A practice can score 4 "good"s but if the 5th indicator scores "requires improvement" or "inadequate" then the six "populations" are all marked as either RI or inadequate. I cannot see therefore how 86% are rendered "good" or "outstanding." Is the population scoring the only one that matters?
    B. Why practices rendered "good" are inspected twice and others have never been inspected? Is it something to do with CQC collecting information from "other sources"?
    What are those occult sources we are not allowed to know?
    Perhaps, Joe might be able to throw some light.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say