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 reveals £100m cost as final results show 90% of GP practices are 'good'

Exclusive The CQC's first completed round of GP practice inspections concluded with 90% rated 'good' or 'outstanding' - and with a price tag of over £100m, Pulse can reveal.

The CQC said the data, released exclusively to Pulse, showed that the programme had led to improvements, since two-thirds of practices given the lowest rating ‘inadequate’ were found to be ‘good’ on re-inspection.

But GP leaders have questioned whether this was the best use of NHS money at a time when the service is severely cash-strapped.

The data obtained by Pulse showed that 90% of practices were rated 'good' or 'outstanding' - up from 87% in July last year.

It also showed that the total cost of GP practice inspections was £55m since it launched in April three years ago.

But when taking into account related costs such as estates, HR, IT and the 'intelligent monitoring' programme, the CQC said the full cost of the general practice inspection programme was £36.5m a year - which by now would amount to around £110m in total.

According to the CQC's chief inspector of general practice Professor Steve Field, this was money well spent.

He told Pulse: 'It is clear that the GP inspection programme has helped deliver improved care for people right across the country.

‘Three-quarters of practices rated as inadequate improved sufficiently on re-inspection to receive a higher rating.’

As of this financial year, NHS England will reimburse GP practices' CQC fees in full but for the past three years the lion share of the cost of general practice inspection - some £20m a year - has been borne by GP practices.

And GPC regulation spokesperson Dr Robert Morley said the programme had subjected practices to ‘enormous cost, workload and bureaucracy’.

He added: 'It’s clear the massive cost and disruption to practices is completely unwarranted and disproportionate – it just confirms what is already known through other means.

‘There is simply no need to have in place the simplistic, misleading and damaging CQC rating system and it should be abolished.’

With CQC fees rising six-fold this year, RCGP chair Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard added: 'GPs have raised the issue of the costs of running the CQC – money that could be spent on frontline care.’

The CQC finished inspecting every practice in England in February this year and, although good and outstanding practices had been told they would now face inspection within five years, Pulse also reported that one-in-four of all GP practices can expect a re-inspection within the next year.

Readers' comments (25)

  • Its not NHS money, its my personal money, and your personal money, that you can spend on your elderly parents or children. or you can use to pay mortgage. or save it for crisis, or buy good food to survive. Some authorities/organisations are enjoying life on GPs hard earned money. its a disgrace.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Whilst I appreciate that the CQC has done good work in uncovering issues in some practices, 100 million would have been very useful in developing general practice in terms of staffing, premises, supporting new models of care etc. We need to decide what our priorities are and perhaps support CCGs to be able to undertake some of the CQCs functions in terms of assessing quality in practices?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "GP inspection programme has helped deliver improved care for people right across the country"

    Please can we have the list of examples.

    Even closing down a few dodgy practices would not justify such a statement.

    Friends of mine tell me they are doing less and less to survive - not exactly improved care

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Expensive sledgehammer and nut come to mind. The effect on practices of the additional stress, time taken away from clinical work, etc, should also be factored in to any cost/benefit analysis

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What a waste of time and money taking doctors out of seeing patients. We did not go into the job not to cure diseases. Otherwise we would be administrative pen pushers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Care has indeed improved.
    We now have paper curtains.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been deleted

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yeah, those paper curtains work wonders for your health :)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Doctor McDoctor Face

    Our staff tea making policy is now in full swing. Its made the surgery a safer and better place to drink hot beverages in.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been deleted

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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

Have your say