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

CQC reviewing all data publications to 'prevent recurrence of mistakes'

The CQC are reviewing the accuracy of all published data to prevent ‘recurrence’ of the mistakes that saw GP practices incorrectly labelled as a potential risk to patient care, care minister Norman Lamb has said.

The regulator will ‘learn lessons’ from the publication of practices’ risk ratings, Mr Lamb said, after it caused an outcry from GPs and medical leaders about the data, which was later found to be flawed following reports from Pulse.

The CQC subsequently withdrew one indicator and changed four more, leading inspectors to contact 60 practices who were given a higher risk rating to apologise.

Responding to a written parliamentary question on Monday, Mr Lamb also said the CQC would be conducting an internal audit to determine how the flawed indicators came to be included in the first place.

Mr Lamb said: ‘Following the discovery of the mistakes, the CQC’s approach has been to apologise, to address the problem, and learn lessons to prevent a repeat occurrence.’

‘The CQC is now reviewing the quality assurance of all of its outward facing analyses to ensure any necessary actions are taken to prevent a recurrence of the mistakes made. An internal audit by the CQC is also in the process of being commissioned.’

The regulator admitted this week that practices that scored well on the GP patient survey were penalised by the CQC’s ‘intelligent monitoring’ scheme because it got answers ‘the wrong way round’, despite the error having been previously flagged up during testing.

Readers' comments (4)

  • The first mistake was to call it "Intelligent" monitoring.

    The error was in fact first spotted by one of our patients who was surprised at our low rating. It was HE who examined CQC's methodology, spotted the errors, and then alerted the BBC. Both CQC and the BBC tried to claim the credit for spotting the mistake but it was in fact a humble member of the public.

    We jumped up 2 points and he earned our grateful thanks and a bottle of champagne. The whole profession is in his debt.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • One wonders why they are investigating specific flaws in the data and not apparently investigating the principle of putting data into the public domain which they conceded is only intended for internal priority-setting.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Spot on, Dylan Summers!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anyone who wants a laugh over the bank Holiday period could do no better than read the quof introdution publications "back in the day".
    Along with commentary it was
    " intended to be a primary care payment by results type process"
    " never to be used for comparisons and perfomance monitoring because of the wide variation between pouulation needs on the small scale scale units of practice level"
    it is full of laughable prose,
    Merry Christmas!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say