More on CQC inspections at:
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
OF LIFE
to avoid having inaccurate or damaging information about its service put in the
public domain.
Providers are told that for each point they must specify exactly where CQC can
find the information that supports the correction or the information but that they
cannot hyperlink or embed it into the form. It appears that there is no reason why
this information cannot be sent separately by email, as long as the relevant parts
are clear and specifically referred to in the FAC form. CQC’s website states that if
documentation is provided in support of a point, you must specify the page and
paragraph number and highlight the relevant part of the document that relates to
the point you are making.
We would always encourage providers to be clear and specific when it comes to
referring to evidence, but often these matters are not straightforward. Under the
new system providers will also have to work within the newly imposed character
restrictions on each point they wish to make in the FAC.
In the new FAC table each row is limited to a maximum of 975 characters
(about 150 words). That said, the guidance also states that ‘if you cannot make
your point using one row, continue in the one below’. The point of the word limit,
therefore, remains unclear, and it may be the case that all CQC will achieve here is
making response forms disjointed and cumbersome for both inspectors and
providers to manage.
DEADLINE FOR RESPONSE
The new guidance suggests CQC will take a strict approach to the deadline for
submitting FACs. The non-statutory deadline of ten working days has been in place for
some time, and while the consultation had suggested this time would be shortened
this proposed change was not welcomed by providers. As such, the ten working-day
deadline has not been amended. However, CQC now states that it will not extend that
ten-day deadline unless there are ‘exceptional circumstances’. Providers must let CQC
know of any such circumstances ‘immediately in writing’ – at the moment there is no
further information setting out what would be considered to be ‘exceptional’
circumstances, and therefore providers should be very careful to submit their FACs in
good time and let CQC know in writing with as much notice and information as
possible if they are not going to be able to meet the ten working-day deadline.
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
‘Providers should
in no way be
discouraged from
submitting robust
factual accuracy
comments with
evidence when
these are required.
CQC appears to
forget how damag -
ing and stigma tising
an incorrect rating
can be..’
REQUESTING INSPECTION NOTES
The consultation had suggested that CQC was going to attempt to implement a
blanket refusal to release inspection notes as part of the factual accuracy process.
We are pleased to see that the new guidance takes a more measured approach to
this, stating that, while CQC will not release the inspector’s full notes from an
inspection, it ‘will consider requests for extracts of notes about a specific issue
where this is reasonably necessary to enable you to understand the basis for a
statement in the draft report that you believe is factually inaccurate (that is, if the
basis of our statement is not clear from the draft report)’.
It is absolutely correct that a provider should be able to request further
information to clarify parts of a draft report that are unclear, to allow them to be able
to provide an appropriate response. CQC now explicitly requests that if providers do
ask CQC for information as part of the factual accuracy checking process, their
request should be short, specific and should clearly justify why they need the
information to raise a point of factual inaccuracy. We would always encourage
providers to be specific about why sight of inspection notes or further information
from CQC to enable them to respond to the report is necessary. Providers should not
be discouraged from making such requests – after all the notes contain the
underlying evidence upon which judgments and ratings are based.
It remains to be seen whether the changes to the FAC process will really make it
more efficient. At first glance, the changes appear to be geared to making the
process easier for CQC but not necessarily for the provider.
Providers should in no way be discouraged from submitting robust factual
accuracy comments with evidence when these are required. CQC appears to forget
how damaging and stigmatising an incorrect rating can be for a provider. In a
climate where resources are decreasing, reports are becoming shorter and less
detailed, and inspection timeframes are increasing, it is all the more important that
providers seize their opportunity to ensure the information about their service that
is placed in the public domain is correct.
The new guidance and FAC tables can be downloaded at:
https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-providers/how-we-inspect-regulate/factual-
accuracy-check-how-respond
Laura Paton is an associate solicitor at Ridouts
May 2019 | drinkanddrugsnews | 15