inspections
FACTS
the changes. Substance misuse providers should ensure that they are familiar with the
most recent version of CQC’s guidance, and the new FAC process and forms.
The consultation had proposed a number of amendments to the FAC process
including a reduction in time – from ten to five working days – for providers to
submit FACs, prohibitive word count restrictions and draconian restrictions on
requesting further evidence or inspection notes from CQC. Fortunately, not all of
these proposals have been taken forward. The main changes set out in CQC’s
guidance for providers and FAC guidance are as follows:
NEW FAC FORMS
As CQC rolls out its new
factual accuracy process,
Laura Paton explains the main
changes for service providers
My colleagues have written in previous issues of DDN about the importance of
submitting comprehensive factual accuracy comments (FACs) to your CQC
inspection report if you consider that the report and/or rating is not a true
reflection of your service. Most recently, one of my colleagues set out some of the
changes proposed by the CQC to the factual accuracy process which had been put
out to consultation among providers (DDN, March, page 13).
In April 2019, following the end of this consultation, CQC finalised and rolled out its
new factual accuracy process and has updated the provider handbooks to incorporate
14 | drinkanddrugsnews | May 2019
A new FAC form has been introduced and a link to this will be emailed to the
appropriate registered person, along with the draft report. The provider then has
ten working days from the date of the email to submit their factual accuracy
comments on the new form.
The new FAC guidance states that all providers must use this form and CQC says
that it will only permit providers to depart from this ‘in exceptional circumstances’.
It should be noted that there is no statutory basis for CQC to impose a requirement
to use this prescribed form and CQC should not refuse to accept other forms of
comments unreasonably. However, the mechanism to challenge an unreasonable
refusal would be by judicial review, which would be time consuming and expensive
for a provider. Providers should therefore endeavour to use the form wherever
possible and, if there are any reasons why they cannot, ensure to advise CQC of this
in good time, and in writing, setting out the exceptional circumstances that mean
the form cannot be used.
The new form seems more complex and less user-friendly than its predecessor,
especially when it comes to providing evidence to support the FAC submissions.
There is a reference to ‘evidence tables’ being given to some types of providers to
respond to, in addition to their draft report, but no detail of who specifically will
receive these tables or what they will contain.
PRESCRIPTIVE PROCESS
The new form is exceptionally prescriptive, and seems designed to make life easier
for the regulator and more difficult for a provider that needs to challenge a report
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com