This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

Gold, incentives and meh

The whole system requires improvement

Editor’s blog

It may not have been a massive surprise that higher funding is associated with higher CQC ratings. As the report's author put it: ‘We found a lot of evidence that additional funding in primary care really does translate into improved quality. Quality care cannot be delivered without quality investment in primary care.'

Since the inception of the CQC, they have branded practices in a way that affects their reputations and calls into question their professionalism – and, in the case of intelligent monitoring, incredibly unfairly.

Practices are being branded as ‘inadequate’ when all they require is funding

But if these ratings are closely associated with funding, as the authors suggest, then these practices are being branded as ‘inadequate’ or ‘requiring improvement’ when the main thing they require is funding.

As we said in our manifesto, we really need to look at the role of the CQC. There is no reason their role can’t change to become an organisation that supports healthcare organisations, rather than instilling fear. Because, as the latest research shows, any attempts to increase care quality would benefit from a commission to make the case for greater funding.

Jaimie Kaffash is editor of Pulse. Follow him on Twitter @jkaffash or email him at editor@pulsetoday.co.uk

Rate this article  (3.71 average user rating)

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 (3)

  • I would have thought that somebody would have worked out a formula by now whereby the well funded practices are given a handicap so as to create a level playing field. The CQC would never consider this - so might Pulse rise to the challenge?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "There is no reason their role can’t change to become an organisation that supports healthcare organisations, rather than instilling fear. "

    - Really? Pure naivety, Jamie. A state run regulator answers to the state, not its members/clientele. Therefore a lack of accountability RESULTS in an agenda that serves the state. Whether instilling fear is intentional or otherwise, it is always LIKELY to be the end result...

    "Because, as the latest research shows, any attempts to increase care quality would benefit from a commission to make the case for greater funding."

    - Well, if you're happy to pay more tax for it Jaimie, you're free to pay more tax to the Treasury now. Even give money directly to practices that are not so well funded... But it's always easier to spend someone else's money isn't it? Or mortgage your own children's futures...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The obvious mechanism to increase funding, as used across the rest of the civilised World, is some form of co-payment from the users.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say