CQC "not fit for purpose."

[quilp]

The Care Quality Commission has come under fire as not being fit for purpose

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjk3p4jnnl6o

It would be interesting to hear how this news is being received within our health service. Will Hooper be rubbing his little hands together?

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/former-health-minister-not-surprised-by-cqc-report/

 

[Kopek]

The two reports seem contradictory?

The UK CQC accepting the criticism, yet Ashford supporting the local versions view of Manx Care management?

Is there a 'middle ground'? Hooper seemed displeased with DHSC review body and sought to discredit it! Were they that bad? How do we, the public know?

[Manx Bean]

Reports can often (and do) surface issues of varying significance. However, as the recommendations are often either ignored or added to the “lessons learned” shredding bin (lets be candid), the whole thing is a waste of time and money.

Manx Care here is generally shambolic, despite the heroic efforts of frontline staff.

[Kopek]

'' ...the heroic efforts of frontline staff...''???

ae you standing in the next Gen Elect by any chance!!!

\it seems the Hooper haters are asleep today, though no doubt 2112 will be alive in the morning???

Still begs the question......... who do we believe???

[Gladys]

14 hours ago, Kopek said:

The two reports seem contradictory?

The UK CQC accepting the criticism, yet Ashford supporting the local versions view of Manx Care management?

Is there a 'middle ground'? Hooper seemed displeased with DHSC review body and sought to discredit it! Were they that bad? How do we, the public know?

Why contradictory?  A body set up by the UK govt to review various areas of the NHS has been found to be not fit for purpose. That same body had also been invited to review aspects of the IOM healthcare system and had produced several reports into different aspects of our healthcare system. 

So, like many bits of the UK NHS, our healthcare system has been reviewed and assessed by a body that another UK review has found wanting.  The question is, therefore, are any of the CQC reports into our healthcare and the recommendations made reliable? 

 

 

 

[John Wright]

4 hours ago, Gladys said:

Why contradictory?  A body set up by the UK govt to review various areas of the NHS has been found to be not fit for purpose. That same body had also been invited to review aspects of the IOM healthcare system and had produced several reports into different aspects of our healthcare system. 

So, like many bits of the UK NHS, our healthcare system has been reviewed and assessed by a body that another UK review has found wanting.  The question is, therefore, are any of the CQC reports into our healthcare and the recommendations made reliable? 

 

 

 

There is a fundamental difference between the CQC performing its duties here and the shambolic way things appear to be in UK.

You'd hope that CQC would provide its best and most qualified assessors to the IoM which is buying in its services on a private basis.

Lots of the disorganisation, failure to inspect at all, or irregularly, doesn’t apply. We choose what and when to buy in.

The summary reports published so far seem to indicate a job well done by assessors/inspectors qualified in the areas they’ve overseen.

[cissolt]

The report from the 3fm article paints a pretty bleak picture of the health service.  https://www.gov.im/media/1379713/20230502-isle-of-man-overview-report-_-final.pdf

You would assume that checking that staff have the relevant qualifications would be pretty important in a health setting!

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

There is a fundamental difference between the CQC performing its duties here and the shambolic way things appear to be in UK.

You'd hope that CQC would provide its best and most qualified assessors to the IoM which is buying in its services on a private basis.

Lots of the disorganisation, failure to inspect at all, or irregularly, doesn’t apply. We choose what and when to buy in.

The summary reports published so far seem to indicate a job well done by assessors/inspectors qualified in the areas they’ve overseen.

Perhaps my question should have been were any of the reports into our healthcare system were UNreliable.   My point was whether there was a contradiction between the response to our CQC reports quoted and the UK's review of them.  

I couldn't see one. 

[Kopek]

I should have been clearer that I was referring to the Manx Patient review body, called I think, the PPP??? and Hoopers contretemps with that body and it's make up. Believe all on it were removed but we couldn't know which side was right and believable.

[Gladys]

4 hours ago, Kopek said:

I should have been clearer that I was referring to the Manx Patient review body, called I think, the PPP??? and Hoopers contretemps with that body and it's make up. Believe all on it were removed but we couldn't know which side was right and believable.

So, not the CQC and not a body referenced in either of the links Quilp posted?  

[John Wright]

6 hours ago, Kopek said:

I should have been clearer that I was referring to the Manx Patient review body, called I think, the PPP??? and Hoopers contretemps with that body and it's make up. Believe all on it were removed but we couldn't know which side was right and believable.

 

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

So, not the CQC and not a body referenced in either of the links Quilp posted?  

I think that’s the Health Services Consultative Committee. Hooper thought they had ideas above their station when they were critical. He changed its rules and appointed new members so they couldn’t be critical going forward.

The only other body would be the Ombudsman complaint resolution service which replaced the Independent Health Service Review Body. It’s called Health and Social Care Ombudsman Body

[Roger Mexico]

There's a number of points to be made about this story.  The first, as the Guardian article makes clear, is that Penny Dash's report was actually commissioned under previous government, though as recently as May.  As you'd expect, what she has come up with is very much an interim report, though based on speaking to an impressively large number of people, given the short time.  The report is here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-into-the-operational-effectiveness-of-the-care-quality-commission/review-into-the-operational-effectiveness-of-the-care-quality-commission-interim-report

and short enough to read.  It also makes clear what the main purpose of it was:

CQC introduced a single assessment framework (SAF) in November 2023 to replace its previous system of inspections and assessments. The new framework was intended to make the assessment process simpler and more insight-driven, with the ability to inspect more frequently, and better reflect how care is delivered by different sectors, but there have been concerns since its introduction that it was not providing effective assessments.

The terms of reference for this review were to examine the suitability of the SAF methodology for inspections and ratings [...]

As usually happens when people promise a new system that will do everything and be much simpler at the same time, it has not gone well.  (There are also separate, though related, problems with computer systems).  There is a lot of valid criticism  of how the SAF operates and of how it has reduced the number of inspections.  But the point to be made here is that the Isle of Man inspections were done under the old way of assessment and so a lot of this criticism doesn't apply.

[Fred the shred]

It is the new Labour Minister for Health that has criticised CQC apparently some of the Inspectors had not been trained sufficiently or in some cases not at all.    He has come to this conclusion very rapidly, since the election, along with other Labour Ministers who are using a slash and burn approach a bit prematurely.   They are intent on making an impression whether good or bad remains to be seen.