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

CQC and GMC to carry out joint inspections on practices 'where both have concerns'

The CQC and GMC will carry out joint inspections on GP practices if both regulators have concerns about a practice, in an agreement which aims to increase the sharing of information between both organisations.

The ‘joint operating protocol’ established by the CQC and GMC will mean that relevant information will be shared between the two organisations to help ‘drive improvements in patient care’.

However, as part of this agreement, both regulators will be sharing information at a number of points in CQC inspections and the GMC’s planned visiting processes - and could subsequently lead to joint inspections on practices if ‘both regulators have concerns about a provider.’

The GMC said that while there is a provision for joint planned inspections in the protocol, this would only take place on ‘very rare occasions’ when the regulator is looking into concerns into standards of training at a practice at the same time as the CQC was investigating their own concerns.

But GP leaders warned that this was a ‘very worrying development’ and that single-handed GPs are under particular threat from the prospect.

The moves comes as the regulator announced that practices found to be inadequate by the CQC following an inspection will immediately be put into special measures. 

As part of the CQC and GMC’s new protocol, which was officially confirmed last month, there is provision for the two regulators to carry out joint inspections if they see fit, although the joint inspections will not contribute to CQC practice ratings.

Dr Robert Morley, chair of the GPC’s contracts and regulation subcommittee, said the possibility of both regulators inspecting practices is a ‘very worrying development.’

He said: ‘This is a very worrying development. CQC and GMC have completely different remits and I cannot conceive of any situation where it would be necessary or the right thing to do to carry out a joint visit. I am particularly concerned  that single-handed GPs might be targeted and treated unfairly by such a scenario, which gives opportunity to inappropriately conflate issues related to professional performance with those of provider regulation.’

A spokesperson from the CQC said: ‘Our joint operating protocol with the GMC sets out how we will share information between our organisations and generally work together, building on our existing Memorandum of Understanding. As professional and service regulators, it is important we make sure patients receive high quality, safe and compassionate care.

‘Within this document, we have outlined what we would consider if we were to ever to carry out an inspection of a service jointly. It does not mean that we “will” or “plan to” carry out inspections with the GMC from now on.

‘A circumstance could include when both regulators have concerns about a provider according to our differing statutory purposes. If this was to ever happen, it would be to inspect against the standards that we are responsible for regulating, to maximise on resources, and to minimise any burden on providers. Our ratings would always be based on the judgements of those on our inspection teams and against our regulations only.’

The GMC said that by both regulators sharing information can help in building a ‘sharper picture of what is happening inside organisations.’

A GMC spokesperson, added: ‘Over the past year we have built up a stronger working relationship with the CQC - and we are committed to continuing this in the future.

‘The joint operational protocol (JOP), published in 2013, builds on of our memorandum of understanding with the CQC and allows us to share important information with each other. It allows us to fulfil our individual statutory functions in a coordinated way, driving improvements in medical practice and the care that patients receive.

‘By sharing information - especially concerns about patient safety – we can both build a bigger and sharper picture of what is happening inside organisations. That means we can target our action more effectively where there are problems.’

 

This article was updated on 21/01/15 at 16:49.

Related images

  • CQC - clipboard - file - paperwork - online

Readers' comments (14)

  • Why don't you invite the Patient Safety Agency and maybe even Scotland Yard to the party too..It seems some people at the top just don't have anything to do or that CQC is so inefficient it needs support from GMC.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • and ultimately CQC will absorb GMC, not that GMC would be a great loss, but CQC appears incapable of approaching general practice in an appropriate manner, anyway!
    In all crises, the greatest have been transparent and apologised regardless of liability...CQC, GMC haven't fallen into this category!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes sure, the bigger the party, the merrier. GMC will now control premises with CQC and GPs will deal with mould in patients' homes. Idiosyncaracies of our times, I guess.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So what are you going to do about it Dr Morley - worried but sweet f*all

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Great! 2 organizations most GPs don't trust joining forces.

    I assume this will mean we should only have to pay one organization (yeah right).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • what can they do?

    the system is set up that if there is a disaster then changes will be made, nothing else will be considered.

    In some ways I hope lots of GP's do retire over next few mths and lots of practices just close.. that will allow for meaningful change

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I work as a GP Advisor (no doubt followed by howls and shouts of traitor) and yes I've been to Band 1 practices. I and my fellow inspectors didnt find any issue and to be honest I do this job intermittantly as my practice was CQC inspected in the early days by two individuals who had little experience, were many years my junior and didnt work as GP's. Thus possibly a working GP who has seen it, done it and got the T- shirt may be more understanding and have a better grasp of the realities/nuances/practicalities of the individual practice enviroment. The input to the lead inspector will thus be more relevant/useful.

    PS met some lovely hard working GP's who get/deserve positive feed back not a "kicking"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No point in GPs , just abolish the system. The reason why primary care gp works is because it's supposed to be messy, unprotocolled, small and just accountable to its own patient population for which it serves. Take that away and you end up with a secondary type care in the community which is ineffecient expensive and on a population level ends up with worse healthcare outcomes,

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yippee- more jeapardy!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • GMC MPTS have been more than indeaquate being fully ifluenced and bullozed by NHS causing dedicated conscientious doctors a lot of grief and financial loss

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say