Comment
LegaL Line
Nicole Ridgwell answers your legal questions
‘ WILL CQC CATCH US OUT?’
With the proposed move by CQC to short-notice inspections coming into force this month, how much leniency will be allowed for one-off issues?
CQC’ s intention to begin short-notice or unannounced inspections of substance misuse service providers will be a significant change for the sector, which has previously had notice of inspectors’ visits and been able to prepare.
It comes at a time when the sector is acutely aware that CQC is watching. In the November 2017 briefing‘ Substance misuse services: The quality and safety of residential detoxification’, CQC set out its significant concerns from the first inspection cycle under the new regime. The headline summary was that CQC took action to require 72 per cent of providers to make improvements due to breaching regulations and failing to meet
‘ Providers should demand that CQC exercise reason- ableness and proportionality.’
fundamental standards of care.
Inspections are crucial to CQC’ s understanding of the services it regulates. The less notice they provide, the less time providers have to prepare. This will understandably cause some nervousness and it may be tempting to request leniency during the period of adaptation. Unfortunately, however, any such requests are likely to fall on deaf ears for two main reasons.
Firstly, short-notice and unannounced inspections have become increasingly common throughout the regulated sectors in the past few years. CQC gave no leniency to, for example, GP surgeries and dental practices when they introduced unannounced inspections and will feel no need to act differently with this sector.
Secondly, inspections are intended to capture an‘ on the day’ assessment of a service. Inspectors understand that the more notice given to prepare, the less likely that what they see is identical to normal practice. Short-notice inspections reduce the opportunities available to providers to‘ improve’ their service, and what the inspectors see is more likely to accurately reflect its normal running.
To expect inspectors to be more lenient because the provider does not have this extra notice period will be met with a less than positive response. That said, the rules of challenging the resulting draft inspection reports remain the same and it is just as important to challenge that which is not factually accurate.
We regularly view draft inspection reports which use isolated or one-off issues to improperly extrapolate a conclusion of systemic failure. This presents a false assessment of the service, and must be challenged through evidence that shows that a one-off issue is not representative of the wider service.
In summary, providers should not be asking for‘ leniency’, but should instead be demanding that CQC exercise reasonableness and proportionality when assessing those one-off issues. To do otherwise would be to publish a misleading report – something which is of no benefit to the public, the service or the reputation of the regulator.
Nicole Ridgwell is solicitor at Ridouts Solicitors, www. ridout-law. com
MEDIA SAVVY
The news, and the skews, in the national media
THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION proves it fuels gangsterism and forces up potency, from moonshine replacing beer and wine almost a century ago in the United States through to skunk ousting milder cannabis on British streets. Stronger products mean smaller quantities for smuggling, bigger profits and more turf fights … When will Westminster accept its lethal failure on this battlefront? We have the highest rates of heroin use and almost one in three of the overdose deaths in Europe. Our mortality rate is ten times that of Portugal, where addiction is treated as a health issue, not a crime. It slashed heroin abuse after decriminalising drugs. British politicians are acting with criminal incompetence as other countries start to end this stupid war and focus on harm reduction. Ian Birrell, Times, 18 April
THERE ARE DRUG INJECTION FACILITIES in almost 70 cities around the world, but not one in the UK. That is because of outdated laws that the UK government must either change or devolve to Scotland. There were 867 drug-related deaths in Scotland last year and countless other lives were devastated. How many of those people would still be alive if they were in a safe environment, using clean equipment and with medical professionals on hand? Aileen Campbell, Herald, 9 April
OBVIOUSLY, IT’ S FAR MORE
HARMFUL TO DRINK HEAVILY. However, the part of the [ Lancet ] study relating to moderate drinking appears to be mainly middle-class territory – the‘ one( or two) glasses of red a night won’ t do me any harm and probably quite a bit of good’ self-delusion desperados, who seem to think their alcohol can’ t hurt them because they bought it from Waitrose … It could be a pricey bottle or a dented can from the budget bin of the supermarket, but drink too much of it, at the right strength, and it will affect your health. Barbara Ellen, Observer, 15 April
‘ I cannot help wondering why everyone wants to prolong a life that will inevitably be joyless...’
SHOUTY HEADLINES ON FRIDAY MORNING proclaimed:‘ Couple of glasses a night shortens life by two years! Much more than four bottles a week can lop off five years!’ By that count, I should have died four years ago … I have always wondered about the veracity of these scare stories, thinking, well, what if your wine glasses are really small? And I cannot help wondering why everyone wants to prolong a life that will inevitably be joyless, as if this were our only ambition. Liz Jones, Mail On Sunday, 15 April www. drinkanddrugsnews. com May 2018 | drinkanddrugsnews | 15