More legal advice at
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
LegaL LIne
Nicole Ridgwell answers
your legal questions
OUR INSPECTOR
HAD INSUFFICIENT
EXPERTISE – CAN
WE CHALLENGE?
Following a recent inspection we were unhappy with our CQC
report. We felt that the person conducting the inspection did not
have adequate experience of the substance misuse treatment sector
and that the specialised nature of our service was not taken into
account. Can we challenge our inspection on these grounds or ask
for a second opinion from someone with more understanding of
residential drug and alcohol services?
This is a scenario we at Ridouts recognise all too well from our regular
interactions with substance misuse providers. It is not unique to the sector but
is certainly a greater problem here than in some others.
This is because, due in part to the relative youth of the sector in terms of
distinct CQC regulation, inspection teams often include no specialist advisors
(SAs) with expertise in the field; instead, teams may include SAs with NHS-only
experience, contrary to CQC’s published guidance emphasisi ng the important
role of SAs in inspections.
CQC’s SA recruitment advert stated that the ‘job purpose’ of an SA was ‘to
provide specialist advice and input into the CQC’s regulatory inspection and
investigation activity. This advice ensures that CQC’s judgements are informed
by up to date and credible clinical and professional knowledge and experience’.
CQC consistently insists that inspection teams attend inspections equipped
with individuals skilled and experienced in that specific environment. In the
case of substance misuse sector providers, therefore, the appropriate SAs would
without exception have substance misuse expertise relevant to that provider. As
readers know, the NHS environment is wholly distinct from the independent
sector and should rarely be compared. In the absence of appropriate SAs,
inspection teams necessarily lack the judgement required for the job; inevitably,
mistakes, misinterpretations and simply factual inaccuracies will occur.
Providers should not be afraid to challenge either the conduct or experience-
level of the inspection team where this has clearly had an unfair impact on the
draft report or seems otherwise inappropriate. This is best done through the
factual accuracy process. Providers should also consider making a formal
complaint on conclusion of the inspection, rather than on receipt of the draft
report. This stops CQC from alleging that complaints are only raised when
providers are unhappy with inspection results.
As said before in this column, challenging factually inaccurate reports and
submitting detailed, evidenced complaints are necessary steps all providers must
take to safeguard their reputations. All reports should reflect the reality of the
service, rather than the prejudice and/or inexperience of the inspection team.
Providers must remember that prospective service users and their families will use
the finalised report, as will commissioners, to inform decisions about admission.
I also echo David Finney’s article (see opposite) and encourage all providers
to actively engage with the new CQC consultation. Providers can help CQC to
appreciate the importance of expertise, and indeed the financial, resource and
time costs of the legal appeals required to remedy the absence of such
expertise. Providers can be the change they want to see, but if they stay silent
they will only perpetuate the status quo.
a sHOT In THe DarK
Steroids, IPEDs – the hidden harm
Find out the latest on IPEDs (image and performance enhancing
drugs), the massive increase in their use and developments
in treatment through psychosocial interventions.
A conference for professionals in substance misuse,
community health, police, probation, gym management,
employee welfare and young people’s education.
26th april 2018
9am – 4pm Colchester, Essex (Weston Homes Community Stadium)
Key speaKers: Jim McVeigh – Director: Public Health Institute, Liverpool John Moores University
susan Backhouse – Professor of Psychology & Behavioural Nutrition, Head of Centre for Sports Performance,
Leeds Beckett University • Ian Boardley, Researcher and Lecturer (IPEDs in sport, exercise and dance),
University of Birmingham • Katinka Van de Ven – National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of
New South Wales • Kyle Mulrooney – National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of
New England • Dave Crosland – Croslands Harm Reduction Services (former bodybuilder and steroid user).
engage: Panel discussion – Q&A with expert speakers – Network with fellow professionals
Tickets: £125 per person including refreshments, lunch and conference papers.
special rate: £100 per person for joint bookings of two or more from the same organisation.
Book your tickets now at
www.eventbrite.co.uk (IPED Conference 2018)
For exhibitor opportunities, accommodation and more: www.openroad.org.uk/conference2018
Or email: [email protected] • Phone: 01206 369782
a secure
foundation
for your
future
With over 100 years
collective experience
in advising providers of
health and social care,
Ridouts is uniquely
placed to work with
you to achieve the
best possible outcome
wherever you are in
the UK.
+44 (0) 207 317 0340
www.ridout-law.com
Nicole Ridgwell is solicitor at Ridouts Solicitors, www.ridout-law.com
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
March 2018 | drinkanddrugsnews | 25