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

Revealed: Hundreds of practices rated risky after CQC botched up patient experience data

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.

During the regulator’s annual accountability hearing in front of the health select committee yesterday, David Behan, the CQC’s chief executive, made the admission that the regulator had changed the wording of the question on the patient survey around ease of access, but had failed to change the answers accordingly, an error affecting 400 practices.

This resulted in practices that received good comments from patients being marked as high risk for that particular indicator, while practices receiving negative comments from patients were given positive ratings for the indicator.

The risk ratings were published on the regulator’s website last month, and were immediately criticised by GPs for rating practices on imperfect data without completing an inspection. The ratings were seized on by national and local media, with practices marked as ‘at risk of providing poor care’.

The CQC has already been forced to apologise to 60 practices who were marked as risky following errors with the indicators, which were first flagged up by Pulse, and has been forced to overhaul five of the 38 measures it uses.

But Mr Behan’s comments are the first indication of the extent of the errors.

He told the committee that its testing of the scheme in July ‘did not flag up any issues’.

He added: ‘What happened in the stakeholder discussions in August is that the question – and this is the first indicator that got withdrawn, the question about ‘can you get an appointment with your GP – that question was originally asked in the negative: ie, “do you have a problem getting an appointment with your GP”.

‘That was flipped around in August, so it was asked as a positive question. The error that we made was that the data wasn’t changed at that time.’

Dr Sarah Wollaston, the former GP who is now chair of the committee, asked: ‘In other words, having changed the question, you didn’t match the change in the answer? It was a complete flip – so people with good access ended up with a bad score, and people with bad access ended up with a good score. Is that a fair way to summarise it?’

Mr Behan replied: ‘Yes. It was the wrong way round.’

Dr Wollaston said that this was a ‘pretty serious’ mistake, and Mr Behan agreed.

He added: ‘We sent that data as part of our face validation exercise to over 400 practices. That is 400 practices out of over 7,500. People came back to us and flagged those changes but we did not pick that up at that time.’

The RCGP and the BMA have called for the whole ratings system to be withdrawn.

Related images

  • CQC -online

Readers' comments (25)

  • Another class action?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "The RCGP and the BMA have called for the whole ratings system to be withdrawn."

    A little bit too late no? You cant un-open pandora's box. This pathetic list shouldnt have made it to the public domain in the first place.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Depressive reading when one's livelihood appears to depend on ignorant perricks.

    Good thing I left.

    You guessed it: I would have become militant...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Took Early Retirement

    Prof Field may yet BE struck off. (though I doubt it, being firmly in the THEM camp rather than "us"). I am still awaiting a response from the GMC as to whether they will look into my complaint.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    I have an idea now:
    I think CQC might have been secretly double crossing the government to destroy its trust and credibility . We should applaud these guys instead!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • CQC; the slapstick Christmas Gift that keeps on giving.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No Practice has been rated, please read the guidance that comes with the risk bandings, they are just a way of scheduling inspections. GP practices will only be rated once they have been inspected.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yet we were inspected, given five green ticks and announced as 'fully compliant', and then rated as Grade 1. What is one supposed to make of that?!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is a big test of Cameron and hunt's insistance that there will be accountability within these NHS organisations - who will go as a result of this basic avoidable error? Or are mistakes within the health service when they hurt businesses and patient confidence acceptable?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • CQC - unfit for purpose (that sounds kinder than my original thoughts which involved the words piss-up and brewery).
    Dear CQC, if we made errors of such magnitude people would die. It wouldn't be enough for us to say 'Ooops, sorry!'
    Has anyone noticed how quiet our pal Steve has been recently? Always in the press when he is championing things, mysteriously absent when it all goes tits up.
    Knighthood delayed by a few months.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say