Covid-19
between 17 March and 17 June, with the CQC stating they had followed up most of these complaints via telephone or by escalating to local authorities. This called into question whether the
CQC was appropriately responding to the high volume of concerns being raised at the height of the national lockdown. It was not until 27 June that the CQC announced a return of routine inspections, with inspections of ‘lower risk services’ resuming in the autumn and ‘higher risk services’ inspections set to take place over the summer. However, the inspection model has
changed, as announced by the CQC on 16 September. The transitional regulatory approach commenced on 6 October and allows the CQC to obtain information from multiple sources, including providers, service users, families and carers. This will allow ongoing monitoring against Key Lines of Enquiry. Where risk is deemed low, no further
action will be taken. If higher, a targeted inspection will take place, focussed on areas of risk. Not all of the five key questions ordinarily reviewed or Key Lines of Enquiry will necessarily be covered. This will allow a focussed and adaptable inspection and may not lead to a change in rating. Other noteworthy changes enacted
by the CQC include: l Change to notifications: care providers no longer need to notify the CQC about individual cases of coronavirus, only if it affects the day to day running of the business.
l Registrations digitised: must be submitted online instead of via post.
l Evolution of monitoring services via the launch of a new ‘transitional monitoring approach’ from 6 October across social care sectors.
In summary, the care regulator does not have plans to return to how it functioned pre-pandemic. It will not be returning to their fixed timetable, nor to its previous inspection processes or frequency of inspecting and publication of reports.
Case study: East Kent Hospitals Trust Following the resumption of inspections by the CQC, on 11 August the care regulator investigated the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford, part of the East Kent Hospitals Trust. Investigating the emergency department and some medical wards, including Covid-19 wards, a series of Covid-19 practice failings were discovered. As summarised by a recent BBC
article on the report, ‘staff did not always wear PPE or face coverings correctly’ and that ‘at least seven members of staff were seen entering and leaving the ward
caring for people who were suspected of having Covid-19 without adhering to hand hygiene practices’. In addition, staff reportedly did not always have access to hand gel or hand washing facilities. This led to the issuing of a Section 31
order against the Trust, meaning that going forward, the Trust must undergo closer monitoring and weekly reporting over its infection control measures. The alarming nature of this report
highlights the importance of the CQC’s inspections for identifying Covid-19 practice breaches and failings across all the sectors it regulates. As a result, its findings will no doubt cause further concern around the CQC’s decision to suspend inspections at time when the regulator arguably needs to be taking more action to ensure its registrants are complying with the proper regulations and guidance. Once the CQC inspection programme
resumes in full, it will be revealing to see the volume of further failings that are uncovered and how long they have been allowed to happen.
Have some care providers turned against the CQC? The government has come under the most fire with respect to their approach to care homes during the pandemic, however the CQC’s response has also been put under the spotlight, particularly throughout May. On 4 May, an open letter was sent by
legal firm Leigh Day on behalf of 11 organisations which support older people, threatening legal action against the CQC and raising concerns that by suspending inspections, the regulator was breaking
December 2020 •
www.thecarehomeenvironment.com 23
©pikselstock -
stock.adobe.com
©DC Studio -
stock.adobe.com
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
