Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Scare Quality Commission?

Dr Bernard Newgrosh writes that the commission shows neither ‘care’ nor ‘quality’ in its inspection process

From Dr Bernard Newgrosh, Bolton

We had our CQC inspection on 5 December. The first session lasted from 9am to 5pm on a Monday. The team leader returned on the Wednesday afternoon for another few hours of questions. And then, more than four weeks later, we received a long phone call with yet more queries.

The time taken between inspection and publication is supposed to be between six and eight weeks. But we didn’t get our report until 11 weeks later. Publication took even longer: the best part of four months. You’d think an organisation with the words ‘care’ and ‘quality’ in its title would be better at meeting its targets.

There was also a noticeable lack of care and quality in the commission of our report. The inspectors mistook our practice for another. We realised this after counting 28 factual errors, 18 misleading statements and several major omissions in the report. It took a 30-page response from us to demonstrate why these were their errors and to show how this was damaging to our practice.

Sometimes, we have problems communicating with patients from overseas. These pale into insignificance alongside our difficulties with the inspectors’ jargon. When they were asked to translate it into plain speech, they were lost for words.

They looked at the 40 chairs in a waiting room that serves two small practices and called it ‘limited seating’. They were told that our newest receptionist had not yet had CPR training as she’d only been in the post for six weeks, and termed that ‘a failing’. She lacks a reference, having been out of work for a decade: that was cited as a breach of schedule three of theHealth and Social Care Act (2008/2014). But there is no such requirement in the Act.

Scare quality? That’s how our patients see it. They are appalled. They object to what is written in the local newspaper, which has managed to select the misleading statements that the CQC deigned not worthy of correction.

It is nice to be so appreciated by our patients, by people who can actually detect care and quality.

Rate this article  (4.89 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)

  • a stupid misconceived quango.
    abolish it

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am amused that the CQC has this large pool of wise people who are considered talented enough to understand and police the NHS from outside. Surely the NHS should be employing these great and good people in useful roles rather that have them kicking tyres and generally making a nuisance of themselves.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • CQC is paid by GPs,they are inspecting practices and writing and commenting about some of issues in practices, which has no relevance to patient's care. instead of supporting practices they are demoralising GP workforce ,no wonder many GPs are leaving.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

IMPORTANT: On Wednesday 7 December 2016, we implemented a new log in system, and if you have not updated your details you may experience difficulties logging in. Update your details here. Only GMC-registered doctors are able to comment on this site.