►
Description
In this episode of CQC Connect, the podcast from the Care Quality Commission, we are joined by Vickie Priest, Head of Primary Care and Community Health Services Policy, Ruby Okojie, Regulatory Policy Manager, Rowenna Marshall, Regulatory Policy Manager, Emma Buglass, Regulatory Policy Manager, Sam Wallace, Provider Engagement Lead, Dave James, Head of ASC policy and Lara Nuttall, Policy Manager.
They discuss our changes for more flexible and responsive regulation consultation, what we hope it will achieve, what benefits it will have for your sector and how you can feedback.
You can read more on our strategy and how to feedback on our website: https://www.cqc.org.uk/get-involved/consultations/consultation-changes-more-flexible-responsive-regulation-consultation
Listen to more podcasts from the CQC: https://soundcloud.com/carequalitycommission
Find out more information about the CQC and how it regulates health and social care in England: https://www.cqc.org.uk/
A
Welcome
to
cqc
connect
the
podcast
from
the
care
quality.
Commission,
the
world
of
health
and
social
care
is
changing,
and
so
are
we
covered.
19
has
really
made
services
think
differently
and
we
are
no
exception.
We
want
to
make
changes
for
more
flexible
and
responsive
regulation.
At
the
start
of
this
year,
we
began
consulting
on
our
new
strategy
and
now
we're
proposing
some
specific
changes
that
will
help
us
to
deal
with
the
ongoing
challenges
from
the
pandemic.
These
proposals
move
us
towards
our
ambition
to
be
a
more
dynamic,
proportionate
and
flexible
regulator.
A
B
Hi
everyone,
my
name,
is
rubia
koje.
I
am
a
policy
manager
in
the
primary
care
and
community
health
services
policy
team,
leading
on
urgent
care,
independent
healthcare
and
online
primary
care
services.
In
terms
of
what
inspires
me
to
work
at
cqc,
I
guess
everyone
uses
health
and
care
services.
It
touches
on
all
of
our
lives
at
some
point
or
other
as
the
independent
regulator
of
health
and
social
care.
B
C
To
ruby
and
over
to
emma
hi
everyone,
my
name
is
emma
bugless,
I'm
on
the
acute
policy
team
at
cqc,
and
I
tend
to
work
on
all
things
to
do
with
our
assessment
of
the
well-led
key
question
in
health.
So
just
like
ruby.
I
work
in
cqc
because
having
access
to
quality,
health
and
social
care
is
important
for
everyone
at
some
stage
in
their
lives.
In
terms
of
my
personal
values,
equality
is
really
important.
I
think
the
increased
focus
on
addressing
health
inequalities
in
the
system
and
in
cqc's
draft
strategy
is
really
positive.
D
Hi
everyone,
I'm
rowena
marshall,
and
I
currently
work
as
a
policy
manager
within
the
same
team
as
ruby,
and
I
tend
to
lead
on
our
policy
relating
to
general
practice
regulation.
So
I've
worked
in
health
and
social
care
for
nearly
15
years.
Having
started
my
career
with
the
previous
healthcare
regulator,
the
healthcare
commission.
Before
moving
to
work
in
the
charity
sector,
I
started
with
cqc
in
2015
as
an
inspector
and
joined
our
policy
team
in
2018.
D
The
work
that
I
undertake
is
really
varied.
It's
always
really
interesting,
but
the
thing
that
inspires
me,
the
most,
is
the
impact
that
we
can
have
on
the
care
that
people
receive.
So
in
my
role,
this
means
working
with
colleagues
and
external
stakeholders
to
keep
our
approach
up
to
date
and
develop
it
for
the
future.
Ultimately,
this
supports
and
enables
our
inspection
teams
to
identify
care
which
needs
to
be
improved
or,
at
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum,
which
is
outstanding
and
from
which
other
providers
can
learn.
A
Lovely
thanks
brian
thanks
for
joining
me
all
of
you,
so
we're
now
going
to
go
into
some
more
information
about
the
consultation
itself,
so
the
pandemic
has
made
it
really
clear
to
us
that
some
of
the
ways
that
we
currently
work
are
holding
us
back
and
stopping
us
from
being
truly
flexible
and
really
being
able
to
respond
to
situations
as
they
happen.
Ruby.
Can
you
start
by
telling
us
about
how
we
want
to
change
our
assessment
of
quality
across
all
sectors.
B
Well,
currently,
site
visits
are
an
important
part
of
how
we
assess
the
quality
of
services.
They
enable
us
to
observe
care
and
culture
in
a
service.
They
can
also
help
us
check
whether
the
information
we
have
reflects
people's
experiences
of
care.
Now,
under
our
current
way
of
working,
we
must
always
carry
out
a
site
visit
to
assess
quality
and
rate
of
service.
B
Instead,
we
want
to
use
a
wider
range
of
regulatory
approaches,
not
just
on-site
inspections,
to
help
us
understand
what
the
quality
of
a
service
looks
like
ro
wenner
is,
can
give
some
examples
of
what
these
look
like,
but
generally,
this
will
include
using
a
wider
sources
of
evidence,
tools
and
techniques
to
assess
quality.
Great
thanks.
D
Following
on
from
what
ruby's
described
for
gp
providers,
this
could
mean
that
the
way
in
which
we
collect
evidence
as
part
of
our
assessments
going
forward,
might
look
and
feel
quite
different
than
it
has
in
the
past.
The
pandemic
has
limited
our
ability
to
undertake
site
visits,
so
we've
had
to
think
about
how
we
can
do
things
differently.
D
A
You
really
interesting
so
also
in
the
consultation
we
talk
about,
rather
than
following
a
fixed
schedule
of
inspections.
We
are
proposing
to
move
to
a
more
flexible,
risk-based
approach
for
how
often
we
assess
and
rate
providers
ruby.
What
does
this
mean
for
those
working
in
health
and
social
care?.
B
Okay,
so
for
services
that
we
rate,
how
often
we
inspect
is
primarily
determined
by
the
current
rating
for
the
service
or
the
provider.
These
rules
can
obviously
vary
across
the
sectors
that
we
regulate
and
they
mean
that
our
regulation
can't
be
as
flexible
and
responsive
as
it
needs
to
be.
The
frequency
rules
also
rely
on
on-site
inspections
as
the
primary
way
for
us
to
carry
out
our
work
now,
rather
than
following
a
fixed
schedule
of
inspections,
we
want
to
move
to
a
more
flexible,
risk-based
approach
that
allows
us
to
update
ratings.
B
More
often
when
we
recognize
changes
in
quality,
we
know
that
this
is
important
to
the
public
providers
and
our
stakeholders.
So
this
means
in
practice
that
we
won't
return
to
using
the
current
inspection
frequencies
that
we
currently
have
published
on
our
website
and
the
type
of
large
inspections
usually
associated
with
this
approach.
Great.
A
D
I'll
say
a
bit
more
about
this
in
a
moment,
but
I
think
it's
important
that
we're
clear
that
the
changes
we're
proposing
would
not
mean
that
we
stop
considering
the
care
provided
to
these
populations
as
part
of
our
assessments.
We
would
still
want
to
look
really
closely
at
how
practices
consider
the
needs
both
of
their
individual
patients
and
their
wider
local
population
and
how
they
provide
personalized
care
to
meet
these
needs.
D
So,
in
terms
of
the
question
and
what
we'd
like
to
achieve
with
the
proposed
changes,
feedback
has
shown
that
our
current
approach
is
too
complex,
and
we
also
know
that
the
ratings
for
population
groups
rarely
show
any
variation
instead
tending
to
reflect
the
quality
of
care
for
all
people
using
the
service.
We're
proposing
these
changes,
because
we
want
to
make
our
approach
as
simple
as
possible
and
make
our
ratings
easier
to
understand
by
not
having
fixed
categories
of
population
groups.
C
What
we're
proposing
is
that
we
continue
to
rate
services
within
nhs
trusts
and
publish
those
at
service
and
location
level,
so
people
will
have
a
view
of
the
quality
in
the
services
where
they
receive
care.
We
propose
that
we
will
no
longer
aggregate
those
to
reach
trust
level
ratings
for
safe,
effective
caring
and
responsive
and
instead
give
a
single
trust
level
rating
based
on
a
development
of
our
approach
to
assessing
the
well-led
key
question,
thanks
emma.
So
what
benefits
or
impact
do
you
think
this
will
have?
C
So
we
know
these
high
level
ratings
that
are
determined
through
aggregate
and
numerous
service
and
location
ratings
can
actually
conceal
the
quality
at
those
particular
service
ratings.
We
want
to
publish
ratings
that
accurately
reflect
the
care
people
receive
in
a
service
while
continuing
to
focus
on
leadership
and
culture
at
trust
level
and
we'll
be
developing.
This
approach
to
assessing
well
led
through
the
strategy
work
too
great.
A
B
C
I'd
really
encourage
providers
and
partners
to
respond
to
this
consultation
as
there's
just
so
much
opportunity
to
shape
how
it's
taken
forward,
we're
looking
at
some
quite
different
ways
of
working,
and
while
we've
set
this
out
at
a
high
level,
we
haven't
set
out
concrete
plans
and
policies,
because
we
really
do
want
to
develop
the
detail
collaboratively
and
finally
ro.
Why
is
it
so
important.
D
I'd
echo
what
emma
and
ruby
have
both
said.
We
think
the
changes
that
we're
proposing
in
this
consultation
will
be
beneficial
for
all
of
the
reasons
that
we've
set
out
and
discussed
today,
but
this
consultation
provides
an
opportunity
for
people
to
tell
us
what
they
think
about
what
we're
proposing
and
to
help
us
ship.
What
that
could
look
like.
E
E
F
Yes,
so
the
changes
that
that
we're
looking
to
to
build
on
and
the
pilot
that
we've
just
been
running
is
around
how
we
can
work
in
a
better
way
with
providers
of
home
care
initially.
So
we
reflected
that
when
we
inspect
those
types
of
services,
lots
of
what
we
actually
need
to
gather
isn't
necessarily
at
the
place
that
we
physically
visit.
F
So
that's
what
we
wanted
to
test
out
really
and
to
see
if
we
could
take
a
more
flexible
approach
and
we
work
really
closely
with
the
providers
themselves
to
see
how
that
could
best
work
and
we're
finding
that
such
there's
lots
of
benefits
to
that
approach
and
lots
of
support
from
the
providers
on
from
our
staff.
So
I
think
that's
that's
something
that
we
want
to
continue
to
look
at
and
potentially
that's
an
approach
that
we
could
also
adapt
to
residential
care
as
well
so
care
homes.
E
G
So
we
used
virtual
methods,
sort
of
via
mssms
teams
and
also
file
sharing
by
emails
and
via
a
virtual
portal,
and
we
actually
received
really
really
positive
feedback
from
both
inspectors
and
providers.
About
this.
The
inspection
time
was
relatively
the
same
compared
to
the
previous
inspection
for
the
service
based
on
the
data
we
had.
But
there
was,
there
was
increased
engagement
actually
with
people
who
use
services,
so
there
was
an
increase
in
70
percent.
G
That
was
partly
due
to
changing
the
time
that
was
spent
between
sort
of
reviewing
documents
and
traveling
to
and
from
the
service,
but
also
we
had
increased
resource
from
our
experts
by
experience
and
a
team
in
cqc
and
to
help
contact
people.
A
familiar
trend
was
very
much.
People
missed
that
face-to-face
engagement,
but
they
did
really
value
the
fact
that
their
day-to-day
work
wasn't
disrupted
by
having
an
inspector
in
the
office.
E
Thanks
lara-
and
I
I
think
what
I'm
kind
of
hearing
from
that
description
of
the
pilots
is
it.
It
gives
us
another
another
type
of
approach
to
assess
services
and
gives
us
a
lot
more
flexibility
around
how
we
do
that
kind
of
assessment,
and
that's
coming
back
to
the
consultation.
That's
that's
really
what
the
consultation
is
about.
I
think
it's
about
giving
us
a
lot
more
flexibility
and
a
lot
more
options
to
assess
providers
and
dave.
F
That's
right
and
as
we
as
we
go
forward
with
this,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
how
we
develop
our
approach
and
evolve
does
work
for
for
everybody.
Really
it's
not
just
about
making
cqc's
life
easier.
It's
actually
about
how!
How
do
we?
How
do
we?
How
do
we
drive
improvement
in
the
best
possible
ways?
How
do
we
work
as
a
true
partnership
with
with
providers
with
people
use
services
with
and
with
other
groups
and
with
other
stakeholders?
So
absolutely
I'd.
E
G
G
Look
at
updating
our
our
handbooks,
our
end-to-end
process.
There
is
a
need
for
some
more
training
for
inspectors
and
also
some
guidance
for
providers
about
the
different
file
sharing
methods.
So
it's
all
very
new
to
us
and
to
provide
us
about
all
of
the
these
different
virtual
methods
that
we
can
use.
So
just
some
training
and
some
guidance
for
everyone
really
and
those
are
the
main
next
steps.
E
F
Sure,
yes,
I
mean,
as
hopefully
the
listeners
are
aware.
We
we
have
an
always-on
kind
of
approach
to
engagement.
We
put
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
into
working
with
with
the
public
and
with
providers
and
with
all
our
partners
across
health
and
social
care
and
our
stakeholders,
and
really
this
is
about
just
taking
a
step
back
from
looking
at
how
we
normally
run
the
big
change
consultation.
The
big
kind
of
standalone
set
piece
consultations
that
can
run
from
anything
from
six
to
12
weeks
and
have
quite
a
long
tail
after
that.
F
Actually
a
lot
of
activity
just
wondering
whether
that's
always
the
best
way
and
always
the
most
effective
way
of
reaching
people
and
reaching
the
the
people
that
need
to
be
aware
of
what
we're
doing
and
need
to
have
a
voice.
So
I
think,
if
anything,
this
means
more
engagement
and
more
more
conversation,
rather
than
kind
of
some
of
these
peaks
that
you
might
see
with
some
of
the
big
standalone
consultations
and
some
of
the
pressure.
F
I
suppose
that
you
can
get
in
trying
to
get
a
formal
response
together
and
then
the
work
that
that
takes
to
analyze.
That
is
actually,
of
course,
written
responses,
are
always
helpful,
but
there's
other
ways
that
we
can
work
with
people
and
to
talk
to
them
and
so
yeah.
I
would
certainly
want
to
to
reassure
you
this
isn't
about
us
just
going
off
to
a
little
room
somewhere
and
just
starting
to
make
stuff
up
far
from
it.
It's
actually
about
how
we
fling
open
those
doors
and
and
just
just
increase
transparency,
increasing
engagement.
E
Absolutely
so,
yes,
definitely
more
more
opportunities
to
get
involved.
Let
us
know
what
you
think
and
have
conversations
with
us
about
the
future.
So
thanks
both
for
joining
us
today
and
and
sharing
your
thoughts
on
on
this
current
consultation
and
thanks
to
everyone
for
listening.
If
you
want
to
share
your
views
on
our
proposals,
you
can
do
through
the
link
in
the
episode
description
and
you
can
find
out
more
on
our
website.
Look
out
for
more
episodes
of
cqc
connect
coming
soon.