Ten things the latest data on CQC inspections tells us
18 March 2015< back to News Listing
“Across almost 40,000 registered locations (excluding dentists), just over 5% have been rated under the new approach. ”
The roll-out of the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) new inspection approach is now well underway across hospitals, mental health, social care and primary care so as 2014/15 draws to a close, we decided to take a look at what the data on the new inspections and ratings tells us. Here are our ‘ten things the latest data on CQC inspections tells us’. It is based on CQC information available under the Open Government Licence and downloaded on or before 13th March 2015.
- Very early days for new inspection process - across almost 40,000 registered locations (excluding dentists), just over 5% have been rated under the new approach.
- Rate of publishing inspection reports has increased dramatically since the start of 2015, with latest 10 weeks averaging 165 reports per week compared to 44 for 10 weeks at end of 2014
- Care home inspection report publication shows greatest increase (almost four fold increase) whilst rate has slowed for NHS healthcare organisations (NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts). Primary Medical services have also increased but by less of a rate.
- Based on latest weekly averages, it will take around 3.5 more years to inspect all social care organisation locations, 4.5 years primary care, almost 10 years for NHS trusts and 20 years for independent healthcare sector.
- Most common rating so far is “Not rated” (mostly during pilot phase). However, of those rated 63% are “Good”, 29% “Requires Improvement”, 6.5% “Inadequate” whilst 1.5% are “Outstanding”.
- Independent Healthcare organisations are most likely to be “Good” or “Outstanding” (although smallest number of inspections to date). 85% of primary medical services, 63% of social care organisations and only 35% of NHS trusts have been rated “good” or above.
- “Safe” domain is least likely to differentiate an outstanding location but “Inadequate” in “Safe” most likely to be associated with an “Inadequate” rating overall. Importance of leadership is highlighted by high frequency of “Outstanding” ratings in “well-led” domain for locations rated “Outstanding” overall and of “Inadequate” ratings for “well-led” domain amongst services rated “Inadequate”.
- There is a relationship between overall ratings for Primary Medical Services (GPs) and the CQC Intelligent Monitoring risk scores. Practices rated “outstanding” or “good” overall have lower risk scores than average, whilst “requires improvement” and “inadequate” rated practices have elevated risk scores.
- However, just because a practice has been identified as ‘Band 1’ through the CQC Primary Care Intelligent Monitoring does not mean it will necessarily be “Requires Improvement” or is going to be rated “Inadequate”. 60% of practices in this band reported to date have been deemed “Good” or “Outstanding”. There have also been seven ‘Band 6’ practices rated as “Requires Improvement” and one practice rated “Inadequate”.
- There is a slightly higher inspection rate amongst Band 1 practices (7% have had an inspection compared to 6% overall) but other “higher” risk bands (Bands 2 & 3) have a lower inspection rate at this stage. This suggests limited prioritisation of practices with higher overall risk scores.
To view underpinning analysis please download the report.