Key points to share from CQC Trade Association Meeting – 8th July 2015 – Stuart Noble, Kingwood Trust

  • Agenda item 3 – A member asked for feedback/clarity with regards to providers being able to pay for extra inspections earlier to improve rating. Feedback was unclear if CQC are able to allow this to happen, it had been discussed, but further clarity is needed. AS said that they would feed this back in the next CQC bulletin.
  • Agenda item 3 – CQC want to introduce relationship leads with trade association members and the inspectorate (proposal attached, feedback on proposal has been requested). Generally members felt this was a good idea. They are wanting to implement and then review in July 16.
  • Agenda item 3 – Inspectorate have been trialling the introduction of feedback forms to physically give to providers at the end of the inspection. This will provide an initial evidence trail of verbal positive and areas for development that the inspector has passed over to the provider. This will allow provider to begin working on developing certain areas and not having to wait for the report to be completed. There will be a caveat at the end of the form stating that additional recommendations may be added once the inspector has reviewed all information, as well as gaining feedback from others on the inspection team and people linked with the service (professionals, families, PWS, etc…). The form will not give a rating, this will come when the report is sent. CQC will send out the form to members for their views/feedback.
  • Agenda item 4 – Discussion around safeguarding and the amount of alerts raised, which should not be classed as an alert. Claire Crawley (DOH) attended to gain feedback form members and to give clarity. Members feedback concerns around LA safeguarding team responses/expectations on what they class as safeguarding. Claire has said that the DOH are working with LA teams to give them better understanding. CQC are wanting to have a working group between providers, Health and LA to improve consistency in this area.
  • Agenda item 5 – ADASS portal was supposed to assist with info sharing with CQC and LA and reduce duplication. This does not seem to have worked, as the 22 LA who signed up to be involved in the pilot, only 8 LA responded and the information provided was minimal. CQC need to look at other methods of how information sharing can occur.
  • Agenda item 5 – It was also mentioned about complaints going to CQC, clarity was given that this has not been the case for a number of years and that complaints should be directed to LGO (Local Government Ombudsman), if it cannot be resolved on an internal level.
  • Agenda item 7 – When discussing inadequate services, it was mentioned about staff training linked to ‘duty of candour’, if staff training is out of date, this would automatically be classed as inadequate.