"assessors wrote reports on services they haven’t inspected;
hospital and primary care inspectors were supervised by a line manager who is not familiar with their specialism, and
quality assurance of reports is done by personnel with no knowledge and experience of the relevant area."
is anyone surprised? How could you get anyone with clinical expertise to spend valuable time overseeing someone else; and more importantly; express concerns
as Carl says, it has to be someone "with skin in the game": a patient or their relatives .......
CQC hopes to 'make sure health and social care services provide people with safe, effective, compassionate, high-quality care, and encourage care services to improve'
As far as I know, this organization does not audit any outcome measures or compare such measures against national standards or comparative organizations.
The focus is on the nursing care. Is it tailored to your needs? Can you be visited or accompanied? Are you asked to consent to interventions? Are you put at risk that could be avoided? Are you subject to abuse? Do you have enough to eat? Are the premises clean?
Patients could receive good care by these measures but receive inadequate treatment and have poor outcomes.
Abolish the CQC and use Google, Trustpilot or similar. A 1 star rating and damming comments on a GP practice/Nursing Home/Hospital/Ward/Department and the public can work out for itself where quality care is to be found. Embarrassment will drive standards up at failing institutions. No one wants to be in charge of a service with a one star review, broadcast to the world. By contrast, when does Joe Public read a CQC report? Any inspection regime will be gamed anyway and failings hidden. The reputation economy fixes this for nothing.
"assessors wrote reports on services they haven’t inspected;
hospital and primary care inspectors were supervised by a line manager who is not familiar with their specialism, and
quality assurance of reports is done by personnel with no knowledge and experience of the relevant area."
is anyone surprised? How could you get anyone with clinical expertise to spend valuable time overseeing someone else; and more importantly; express concerns
as Carl says, it has to be someone "with skin in the game": a patient or their relatives .......
CQC hopes to 'make sure health and social care services provide people with safe, effective, compassionate, high-quality care, and encourage care services to improve'
As far as I know, this organization does not audit any outcome measures or compare such measures against national standards or comparative organizations.
The focus is on the nursing care. Is it tailored to your needs? Can you be visited or accompanied? Are you asked to consent to interventions? Are you put at risk that could be avoided? Are you subject to abuse? Do you have enough to eat? Are the premises clean?
Patients could receive good care by these measures but receive inadequate treatment and have poor outcomes.
Quality cannot be improved/maintained through inspection.
Abolish the CQC and use Google, Trustpilot or similar. A 1 star rating and damming comments on a GP practice/Nursing Home/Hospital/Ward/Department and the public can work out for itself where quality care is to be found. Embarrassment will drive standards up at failing institutions. No one wants to be in charge of a service with a one star review, broadcast to the world. By contrast, when does Joe Public read a CQC report? Any inspection regime will be gamed anyway and failings hidden. The reputation economy fixes this for nothing.