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

Practices usually rated inadequate due to processes and not care failures, says CQC

Practices labelled inadequate by the CQC during inspection are very often providing compassionate and respectful care, but let down by not having simple governance processes in place, according to the CQC’s deputy inspector of general practice.

Ruth Rankine, who is responsible for GP inspections in the South of England, admitted the quality watchdog could do more to take account of its own ‘caring’ domain when inspecting.

She added that they were also looking at how they took account of the financial context each practice is working in, after practices on several inspections raised a lack of investment as reason for underperforming in some areas.

The GPC said that the latest comments demonstrate that the CQC’s rating regime is ‘misleading and unfit for purpose’.

Pulse has reported that many practices placed in a ‘special measures’ improvement regime after being found inadequate had failed on their recruitment policy, but found to have ‘no evidence of clinical risk to patients’.

Speaking at the at the Urgent Health UK 2015 conference in Macclesfield last month, Ms Rankine said that practices were often marked down on issues around ‘medicines management, out-of-date drugs and fridges not being monitored’, and acknowledged that this approach might seem ‘picky’ .

However, she said that they added up to raise questions about a practice’s leadership, and said she was frustrated that simple things were often not in place.

Ms Rankine said: ‘Very often when we look at inadequate providers, the ”caring” domain can be good. That’s quite difficult for us, because patients are saying “I’ve been with this practice, this provider for 40 years, they’ve seen all my family and they know my first name.”

‘So the piece of work we need to look at is how we more adequately look at and assess the caring domain, what more information do we really need to get to the bottom of whether a provider is really caring, and what caring looks like.

’For [inadequate practices] it’s weak leadership and governance, and often really basic systems and processes are not in place. Really simple things which on their own may not be significant, but when you continually find them on inspection it says something about the overall leadership, organisation and management of the provider.’

On the issue of practice funding, she said the inspectors hear practices cite a lack of funding, and CCGs failing to sign off business cases for premises upgrades for any failures, ’so there’s questions about how much we look at money and budgets’.

But chair of the GPC contracts and regulation subcommittee Dr Robert Morley said that Ms Rankine’s comments show the problems with the inspection regime.

He said: ’It’s rather ironic that the CQC finds that the quality of caring is invariably good and yet the practice is deemed inadequate.

’The bottom line is that CQCs entire inspection, judgement and simplistic single rating regime is misleading and unfit for purpose, a point GPC has repeatedly made.

’CQC can never truly measure the quality of care, it merely makes judgements based on box-ticking exercises, many of them arbitrary and lacking validity, which it uses as a proxy for demonstrating quality.’

The CQC’s inspection regime focusses on five domains - whether a practice is ‘safe’, ’effective’, Responsive, ’well-led’, and ’caring’, which is defined as ‘staff involving and treating people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect’.

A CQC spokesperson added that further work will look at how inspections ‘distinguish between “good” and “popular” from a patient’s perspective.’

Readers' comments (16)

  • IE "you're giving good care but didn't tick the boxes very well"

    this must be why CQC are increasing their fees six fold?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Where is Master Yoda?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dear All
    So the question is how much better will the care be after the boxes have been ticked?

    Answer - no better. It will still be good and caring.

    So what is the benefit of ticking the boxes?
    Nothing. So what is the benefit of CQC?

    If its boxes they want ticking why don't they bring a complete set of pre-prepared documents and policies and we glue our letterhead to it - simples.


    One of our reasons for being "inadequate" was that the evidence of training of our HCA was verbal, I said i'd trained her, she agreed she'd been trained (in a separate interview) and everyone was happy. She was doing the procedures, no problems or failures, patients were delighted with the service. But verbal evidence, good enough for a court of law was not good enough for CQC, they determined there was "No evidence" of training.

    CQC fails at every level and on every occasion.


    Regards
    Paul C

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • THERE IS A HUGE NATIONAL VARIATION IN FUNDING PER PATIENT-EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS AND IT IS AN OUTRAGE AND BEYOND THE UNDERSTANDING OF ANY SANE PERSON.
    SOME PRATICES HAVE PLENTY OF DOSH AND SOME HAVE **** *** PUT SIMPLY.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So if "care" doesn't really come into their ratings, surely an expensive rebrand is in the offing, to go with their fat fees. I have seen good people driven out of the profession by these pitchfork-bearing ninnies. Steve Field is an absolute disgrace.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • CQC=Inadequate practices with a failure of care.Well done Prof Field full marks for damaging primary care beyond repair.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Many miss the point. CQC is there to prevent small things linking together to form disasters. They rarely happen but when they do.... Similar resistance was there when seatbelt were first introduced. Having said that, we should not pay a penny for their services. The government should.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Very often when we look at inadequate providers, the ”caring” domain can be good. That’s quite difficult for us..."

    ...because you're destroying the dignity of individuals working hard to provide good care to their patients?

    Yeah I can see why that would be difficult.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • These bloody slackers. Do all the easy bit of caring for their patients and then slack off all the important paperwork.

    They should be ashamed they are neglecting their tickboxes to spend time looking after people.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Have CQC just acknowledge that random (and not necessarily representative) patient feedback is not as useful as GP-land was led to believe or have I just been hit by a flying pig?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say