It may not have been a massive surprise that higher funding is associated with higher CQC ratings. As the report’s author put it: ‘We found a lot of evidence that additional funding in primary care really does translate into improved quality. Quality care cannot be delivered without quality investment in primary care.’
Since the inception of the CQC, they have branded practices in a way that affects their reputations and calls into question their professionalism – and, in the case of intelligent monitoring, incredibly unfairly.
Practices are being branded as ‘inadequate’ when all they require is funding
But if these ratings are closely associated with funding, as the authors suggest, then these practices are being branded as ‘inadequate’ or ‘requiring improvement’ when the main thing they require is funding.
As we said in our manifesto, we really need to look at the role of the CQC. There is no reason their role can’t change to become an organisation that supports healthcare organisations, rather than instilling fear. Because, as the latest research shows, any attempts to increase care quality would benefit from a commission to make the case for greater funding.
Jaimie Kaffash is editor of Pulse. Follow him on Twitter @jkaffash or email him at firstname.lastname@example.org