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 is 'an ineffective regulator', says MP report

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is an ineffective regulator, MPs on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) have said.

In a report published today, PAC said the CQC is failing to meet targets for inspecting GPs and that there are delays in the completion of its reports – which often contain basic factual errors.

The PAC said that, while the CQC had made ‘significant progress’ since 2012, it ‘is behind where it should be, six years after it was established, in that it is not yet an effective regulator’.

According to the committee’s report, staff vacancies, problems with recruitment and a high staff turnover have impaired the CQC’s ability to carry out its inspection programme of GPs.

At the time of the report, the CQC had inspected 1,217 GPs against its target of 1,924. At this rate, the CQC predicts that at the end of March 2016, inspection rates in primary medical services will be 8% below target.

The PAC also raised concerns about the timeliness and quality of the draft inspection reports, finding that the CQC is taking 67 days to complete reports on GPs despite having a target of 50 days.

Labour MP Meg Hillier, who chairs the PAC, said: ‘There’s too often a long gap between inspections and reports being published – and sometimes an alarming lack of attention to detail when reports are being prepared.

‘One NHS foundation trust told us staff had identified more than 200 errors in a draft commission report, including data inaccuracies. The fact these errors were picked up offers some reassurance but this is clearly unacceptable from a public body in which taxpayers are placing their trust.’

The report suggested that the CQC explain how it plans to improve the quality of draft reports and reduce delays in publishing the reports, stating that the PAC ‘expect[s] to see progress on this in the next 12 months’.

Responding to the report, CQC chief executive David Behan said: ’We have always maintained that there is more we have to do, in particular with regards to improving the timeliness of our reports and inspecting all health and adult social care services. These are not new issues and we have been working hard to improve our performance. We have reported on our progress in public every month and we will continue to do so.

’What is essential is that we do not take any shortcuts, which could compromise the quality of the important work that we do.’

In a previous report on the CQC in 2012, the PAC expressed ‘serious concerns about the Commission’s governance, leadership and culture’.

The criticism comes as the CQC has proposed to increase fees for primary care registration by 567% within the next two years – an increase of £15,000 for some practices.

Readers' comments (13)

  • CQC on special measures LMFAO

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • it is just rubbish/ money draining for gps who are underpaid and stressed

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sadly the criticism sounds fairly superficial - delays and factual errors - implying that there is no fundamental problem with the whole approach to regulation.

    I would rather have seen proper analysis of the deeper question of whether ticking CQC boxes has any correlation with providing good care.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The easy answer is to make GPs pay for all of their CQC inspections- no need to bother the PAC as it's GP income rahter than direct taxpayer money.
    Privatise the business/admin side of hospitals CQC now out of PAC - job done.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Daily Telegraph reporting it as "threat to patient safety" which I construe as something of an insult.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I worked as an inspector for a while. I was embarrassed about the random nature of inquiry - any member of the team could come up with any idiosyncratic query and the practice was expected to dance around trying to answer whatever nonsense they announced. after I quite the zero sum hour contract I got a pretentious email which read like it had been written by a 12 year old trying to sound grown up, and advising me how Nigel Sparrow had been informed of my departure - wow, I had a hard time not wetting myself with fear! A little later I received a survey asking why I left - I got as far as the question on "intergrated service" and quit in disgust. Lions led by lambs indeed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Master Yoda , please resign with honour.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The CQC lot remind me of the apprentice hopefuls where lord sugar makes them perform tasks WAY above their skill level. Good TV because of the calamities that follow. CQC are the same but without the laughter factor and with lots of lives at stake. Lets justify their existence and give them a TV reality show £££££

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I feel like i amscrewed and i have to pay for it , cqc fee is very high and soon will not be affodable.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Politicians set up a flawed system and then criticise the folk they employ to run it...complaining the system is flawed.

    F£&@ing joke

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say