FEATURE
to help promote a better outcome for people living in care. There is clear collaboration, and Scottish clients are extremely heartened by the Care Inspectorate’s support.
The Scottish regulator also has a Quality Improvement Team, which creates excellent resources that are shared on the website and in the weekly newsletters runs. It offers workshops – some virtual, to widen access, some in-person and even provider-specific.
For example, a client reported an increase in complaints, so the Care Inspectorate arranged a face-to-face workshop that was attended by all of the provider’s Scottish home managers, and three other colleagues per home. During the workshop, they discussed the client’s complaints process, gave suggestions on what it could do to make it better, and completed coaching with colleagues. The aim of the session was to try and upskill colleagues working on the floor to manage and recognise complaints before they become formal.
ENGLISH PROVIDERS CAN ONLY DREAM OF THIS TYPE OF ENGAGEMENT.
Since Ian Trenholm’s appointment in 2018, the CQC has leaned into a model of enforcement, oſten accompanied by harsh press releases that spotlight failure rather than enable recovery. Of course, action must be taken against unsafe providers, but what if the CQC followed the lead of its neighbours and used inspections as an opportunity to guide, not just judge? What if it embraced a more transparent, less adversarial model?
We’ve seen CIW and the Care Inspectorate in Scotland share examples of excellent care between providers, encouraging dialogue and improvement across the sector. That kind of openness fosters a climate where providers welcome inspection and feedback rather than fear it.
CIW, Care Inspectorate Scotland, and RQIA show that it’s possible to regulate firmly while still being fair and supportive. Their inspectors are present, personal, and pragmatic. And while no regulator is perfect, their approach feels more aligned with the sector’s ultimate aim: improving the lives of those who use services.
There’s a cautionary tale in all this, not just for the CQC, but also for the regulators in the devolved nations as well. CIW has recently adopted a rating system similar to the CQC’s, in an effort to promote transparency and aid customer choice and decision making. However, we hope it resists the temptation to driſt into the same trap as CQC: chasing statistics and ratings to justify its existence, rather than focusing on meaningful assessments and sector relationships, and improving outcomes for the people supported.
Regulators that try to win headlines risk losing the confidence of those they oversee. Confidence is hard to earn and easy to lose. And for the sake of the people who rely on these services, it’s vital that regulators inspire partnership, not paranoia.
LOOK OUTWARD, LISTEN INWARD
As the CQC embarks on its transformation journey, now is the perfect moment for the CQC to look to its neighbours – not just for inspiration, but for real, structural learning. There are three alternative models of care regulation operating within the United Kingdom that offer a more human, more effective blueprint. The question is, does the CQC have the humility and courage to take note?
We hope so. Because regulation done well isn’t just about holding services to account – it’s about liſting them up and improving services across the sector.
www.acuitylaw.com
13
www.tomorrowscare.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42
