NEWS
CQC inspection regime – room for improvement?
Care Quality Commission (CQC)’s “Ofsted- style” inspection and rating regime is a significant improvement on the system it replaced, but it could be made more effective, according to the first major evaluation of the approach introduced in 2013. The new regime for assessing the
performance of health and care services was the centrepiece of the then government’s response to the Francis report into the failures of care at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. The research, carried out by The King’s Fund and Alliance Manchester Business School between 2015 and 2018, examined how it was working in four sectors - acute hospitals, mental health, general practice and social care – in six areas of England. The new approach was seen as a significant improvement on the system it replaced, which had been widely criticised following several high-profile failures of care. The report, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, found that the impact of the inspection regime came about through the interactions between providers, CQC and other stakeholders not just from an individual inspection visit and report. It suggests that relationships are critical, with mutual credibility, respect and trust being very important. The report argues that CQC should invest more in the recruitment and training of its workforce and calls on providers to encourage and support their staff to engage
New VP for UK’s oldest surgical
Royal College A multiple award-winning consultant surgeon who has dedicated much of his career to the education and training of surgeons has been elected vice president at UK’s oldest surgical Royal College, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. Professor Rowan Parks is revered for his work in medical education and training, and his work in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery; he has been recognised with multiple awards, distinctions and fellowships. Alongside becoming vice president of the 500 year old Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Prof Parks is also professor of surgical sciences at the University of Edinburgh, president of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, and deputy medical director of NHS Education for Scotland. Prof Parks said: “I am delighted and truly
openly with inspection teams. The report highlights a number of areas for improvement in CQC’s approach to regulation. It cautions that the focus on inspection and rating may have crowded out other activity which might have more impact. It recommends that CQC focus less on large, intensive but infrequent inspections and more on regular, less formal contact with providers, helping to drive improvement before, during and after inspections.
The evaluation found significant differences in how CQC’s inspection and ratings work across the four sectors it regulates. Acute and mental health providers were more likely to have the capacity to improve and had better access to external improvement support than general practice and social care providers. The report recommends that CQC think about developing the inspection model in different ways for different sectors, taking into account these differences in capability and support. The researchers also analysed data on A&E, maternity and GP services to see if CQC inspection and rating had an impact on key performance indicators but found only small effects. There was also little evidence that patients or GPs were using ratings to make choices about maternity services. The ‘risk-based’ system using routine
performance data which CQC used to target inspections was found to have little connection to subsequent ratings. The report suggests the
CQC use a wider range of up-to-date data to develop a more insightful way of prioritising inspections.
The CQC is now implementing a revised strategy for regulation which addresses some of the issues raised in the report. The report welcomes their new focus on developing stronger, improvement-focused relationships with providers and system-wide approaches to regulating quality. Ruth Robertson, report author and senior fellow at The King’s Fund, (pictured) said: “Over the past few years, the CQC has completed a herculean task by inspecting and rating every hospital, general practice and adult social care provider in England. Although we heard general support for their new approach, we also uncovered frustrations with the process, some unintended consequences and clear room for improvement.”
honoured to be elected vice president of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, alongside Pala Rajesh – the College’s first Indian vice president. I have now been a Member of the College for two decades, and I am thrilled to have the privilege of taking the next step in moving forward the College’s vision and strategy; ensuring high standards in the delivery of education and training, as well as in the provision of high-quality surgical care.” Prof Parks – who has won awards from a diverse range of bodies, including Royal
10 I
WWW.CLINICALSERVICESJOURNAL.COM
Australasian College of Surgeons, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, and British Medical Association – undertook all his surgical training in Northern Ireland, having grown up in Belfast. He qualified from Queen’s University in Belfast in 1999. As a consultant in liver and pancreatic surgery, he has contributed heavily to training of undergraduates and postgraduates in this area. Two vice presidents are elected each term, remaining in their positions for three years. They are nominated by Fellows and voted in with a ballot. Their role includes taking the chair at meetings at which the president is unable to attend, and supporting the president in their role, alongside their own duties within the College.
The college’s new president-elect,
Professor Michael Griffin, said: “The College is delighted to have elected to appoint such a respected and applauded vice president. The honour is ours, and we very much look forward to the work Prof Parks will undertake towards continuing the promotion of high standards in surgical practices, education and assessment.”
NOVEMBER 2018
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 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88
