What do we do when it’s CQC that requires improvement?

There was a lot of hype around the new single assessment framework going live in November 2023.

As you can see the blog here paused while I set up a new online support site achievable care quality community and the associated newsletter to support managers by giving ideas for compliance against each of the quality statements.

The framework was announced with a flourish, and soon developed multiple delays.

The new CQC portal was announced, then came a series of disasters and we were sent
notifications on February 26th, March 11th, March 12th,March 14th, March 18th, March 25th, April 9th, May 3rd of various hiccups encountered during the launch,  meaning most providers still don’t have a working CQC portal.

 While the tech issues rumble on in the background, the new framework for inspection has finally been rolled out across
the whole country, with services having  differing sets of quality statements and evidence examined. Varying amounts of quality statements have been used to decide new ratings, from one quality statement which enabled a service to retain its outstanding rating;  and others who had what were described as 5 priority statements looked at. The most I have seen used in a report so far were 15 quality statements examined.

There seems to be a variety of experiences, as there were before, both good and poor inspections, good and poor
attitudes. Inspections have been time consuming or time efficient depending
on the amount of electronic evidence required.  So how do we as a sector move forward while the regulator is in such a mess?

SIMPLE!

We stick to regulation.

Let’s remember that the regulations have not changed. While there has been an
inclusion of the right to visit during an outbreak in regulation 9a; the others that we work to are very clear and have been in place a long time.

While the single assessment framework tries to simplify how CQC will look for the
evidence of these regulations being adhered to, it is still the regulations that providers need to follow. Once you understand the aim of the regulation, you are empowered to challenge any regulator who instructs you to care as per their preferences. Only if you are not meeting regulation can you be in breach.
For example, Regulation 14 states “receipt by a service user of suitable and nutritious food
and hydration which is adequate to sustain life and good health,” It does not say there needs to be a fruit bowl available for residents to choose their own fruit ( nice if you can, but it’s a preference) it does not mean you have to
have a hydration station in each communal area ( some services find this a very handy thing to have, but it’s a preference) Having heard of managers being
criticised when the inspectors preferences are not adhered to, I have made it part of my role to empower managers to understand regulation requirements vs inspectors preferences and enabling managers to challenge the  latter.

Good care will always be good care, and the currently accepted way of evidencing good
care is to document what has happened. To have contemporaneous documentation is a lot easier in the presence of digital systems that record interactions at the press of a button. To evidence good leadership, you need to show evidence of oversight, and  the  traditional way to do this is to audit across your service and show that you understand where things need improvement.

These have always been the basics of good ratings for an inspection. The single assessment framework now puts a little more emphasis on gathering evidence of feedback from clients, families, staff and external partners. It also looks closer at the wellbeing support that staff receive from their employers.

If you want to know more about the single assessment framework or have a full quality audit please do hit the contact button.

Scroll to Top