►
From YouTube: Publishing findings from our assessments
Description
In this video, Chris Day, Director of Engagement, takes us through how we plan to publish findings from our assessments under the new single assessment framework.
This recording was taken at an engagement event we ran recently with professionals working in health and social care and the organisations that represent them; organisations representing people that use services, including Healthwatch and charity organisations; and wider stakeholders.
Attendees at the session took part in breakout discussions, and you'll hear a summary of some of the feedback later in the video.
If you’d like to get involved and share your views on this topic, head over to our participation platform https://cqc.citizenlab.co/en-GB/
Also, here’s some handy links you may find useful:
• Year in a life of our new regulatory model https://youtu.be/hNYXznK9tWk
• Keep up to date with how we’re regulating with these new website pages https://www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/how-we-will-regulate
A
A
A
We
want
to
move
away
from
a
as
quality
from
a
provider.
Organization
is
maybe
familiar,
a
very
large
excel
spreadsheet.
That
lands
on
in
somebody's
email
has
to
be
filled
in
and
returned
back
more
of
an
ongoing
conversation
where
much
of
the
information
actually
comes
from
directly
from
third
parties,
although
some
of
it
will
still
come
from
providers.
But
crucially,
it
will
provide
some
more
information
about
where
providers
sit
relative
to
each
other,
the
third
area
of
safety
through
learning.
A
We
know
from
our
work
that
sometimes
there
is
a
tendency
to
for
organizations
to
be
to
be
worried
about
the
outcome
of
an
inspection
activity,
and
I
think
what
that
doesn't
do
necessarily
is
to
promote
learning
and
learning
through
things
that
don't
that
don't
go
well,
some
things
that
don't
work.
So
how
do
we?
A
A
We
don't
exist
just
to
just
to
measure
organizational
performance.
We
we
exist
to
try
and
drive
an
improvement
in
it.
We
ever
since
we
first
published
a
series
called
driving
improvement,
which
was
looking
at
organizations
that
had
that
were
inadequate
or
requires
improvement
and
moved
to
good
and
outstanding.
A
So
at
part
of
that
that
new
approach
is
is,
what's
called
a
single
assessment
framework,
so
we
used
to
have
assessment
frameworks
designed
for
different
sectors
we've
over
time.
We've
we've
we've
constituted
them
into
two.
This
is
trying
to
bring
a
single
focus
to
our
assessment
of
organizations,
partly
to
help
us
make
sure
that
we're
being
consistent
in
the
way
we
do
nations,
but
also,
frankly,
to
give
ourselves
a
common
view,
as
we
begin
to
look
across
systems
as
well
as
individual
providers.
A
So
some
of
the
things
that
will
stay
the
same
first
of
all,
the
single
session
will
apply
to
all
services
that
we
regulate.
We
will
still
have
the
phi
key
questions:
our
services,
safe,
caring,
effective,
responsive
and
well
led.
There
will
be
quality
statements
that
will
be
I
or
we
statements
that
sit
beneath
them.
So
what?
What
do
we
expect?
Or
what
can
people
who
use
services
expect
and
then
there'll
be
some
information
sits
below
that
which
is
designed
to
support
how
an
organization
might
assess
itself
against
those
against
those
quality
statements.
A
The
the
we
statements
will
indicate
what
provider
or
commissioner
or
a
system
needs
to
do
to
deliver
high
quality
care.
The
I
statements
will
be
designed
to
say
what
a
person
you
serve
expect
from
from
an
individual
provider
so
that
that
new
assessment
lies
at
the
heart
of
how
we
might
change
what
that
looks
like
when
we,
when
we
present
information
to
to
the
public,
only
be
back
to
providers.
A
So
why
we're,
while
we're
updating
our
reports?
Well,
one
of
the
first
things
about
our
reports
that,
if
you've,
if
you're
a
student
of
our
work
over
a
period
of
time,
our
reports
are
incredibly
long
and
not
not
necessarily
accessible
they're,
usually
one
of
all
those
pdfs
which
has
its
own
issues
with
accessibility.
A
A
We
also
want
them
to
be
designed
to
show
how
a
service
is
improving
or
could
improve,
improve,
and
obviously
we
need
it
to
effectively
represent
the
information
that
we've
we've
gathered
about
an
organization
and
today
to
provide
that
information
more
in
real
time.
So
traditionally,
we've
we've
produced
a
report
after
an
act
of
inspection.
A
The
idea
of
the
of
the
always-on
view
of
quality
is
that
we
might
update
our
view
our
assessment
of
an
organization
on
a
more
regular
basis,
sometimes
by
crossing
a
threshold,
sometimes
by
working
with
a
provider
in
a
different
way
to
gather
information
and
make
make
a
a
judgment
about
how
an
organization
is
is,
is
changing
so
the
the
new
elements
of
the
future
report.
So
the
summary
of
people's
experience
of
the
services
is,
is
vital
and
lies
at
the
heart
of
this.
A
So
people
can
see
relative
movements,
the
the
the
the
four
key
ratings
inadequate
requires,
improvement,
good
and
outstanding
are
themselves
quite
wide
and
we
want
to
try
and
give
more
information
about
where
an
organization
sits
in
particular
areas,
and
we
want
to
be
able
to
give
a
better
navigation
to
the
report.
So
to
say.
Currently,
a
pdf
document
can
be
20
or
30
pages
long.
We
want
to
try
and
give
better
navigation,
so
people
can
pull
in
on
the
issues
that
they
are.
A
That's
been
the
same
for
five
or
six
years
now,
where
we've
we've
had
a
similar
approach
to
how
we,
how
we
view
organizational
so
it
shows
the
current
rating.
It
obviously
gives
the
names
of
people
responsible
for
the
service.
It
clearly
states
the
service
that's
been
offered
and
it
links
to
more
detail
information
that
the
the
rating
someone
can
unpack.
So
that's
our
that's.
Our
current
current
look
and
current
view.
A
The
new
elements
are
that
we're
we're
testing
out
and
I
think
a
mock-up
was
available
in
the
pre-reading.
The
one
thing
I
say
about
the
mock-up
is
it
is.
It
is
one
of
the
examples
of
the
models
that
we
are
testing
in
our
ongoing
sort
of
work
with
people
who
services
in
particular
so
don't
see
the
mock-up
as
a
as
a
prelude
to
being
the
answer.
In
a
sense,
it's
as
much
to
generate
a
good
debate
in
this
in
this
conversation
and
elsewhere.
A
So
it
isn't,
it
isn't
by
any
means
a
done
deal.
In
fact,
I've
got
some
feedback
from
the
the
public
groups
that
we've
done
some
testing
with.
But
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
to
give
a
key
information
about
when
the
organization
was
last
assessed.
When
we
last
published
a
report
when
we
were
last
reviewed,
the
ratings
of
the
service,
which
may
not
be
the
same
time
as
when
we
cross
the
threshold
but
may
be
linked
to
other
data
information
or
other
conversations
that
we'd
have
with
the
the
organization.
A
So
there's
a
there's,
a
graphical
element
which
shows
the
rating
scale
where
the
service
sits
within
those
ratings,
there's
a
score
for
a
service
and
the
bands
for
its
rating.
There's
a
proportion
of
services
that
that
are
similar
to
that
organization
and
where
similar
organizations
are
rated
and
an
overall
summary
in
people's
experience
and
sort
of
a
representation
of
it.
A
Some
of
this
just
to
give
you
a
sense
of
whether
whether
where
the
public
feedback
on
this
is
from
the
work
we've
been,
we've
been
with
with
them
with
members
of
the
public.
So
people
quite
like
the
sort
of
the
graphics
are
on
the
page
and
the
traffic
light
system
and
and
colors
and
interpreting
them,
and
they
they
thought
that
the
use
of
graphics
was
good
to
help
determine
the
standard
of
care,
but
they
didn't
they
weren't
as
familiar
with
the
numerical
scores,
what
they
meant.
A
They
said
they
relied
upon
the
colors
more
than
the
numbers,
and
there
was
a
limited
number
of
people
that
sort
of
link
down
into
what
that
means.
What's
the
score
of,
in
this
case,
56?
What
does
that?
What
does
that
mean
for
for
how
services
operate?
Operate,
people
notice,
information
about
the
direction
of
change
and
improvement,
and
they
and
they
used?
They
did
use
that
to
make
informed.
They
said
he
would
use
that
to
make
informed
decisions.
A
So
we
were
talking
to
women
that
were
going
to
have
going
to
use
maternity
services,
that's
where
they
would
go
for
their
information.
They
would
they'd
move
away
from
the
overall
information
and
look
at
the
services
that
were
particularly
relevant
for
them.
So
that's
some
of
the
some
of
the
early
feedback
we've
had
on
this
and
why,
as
I
say,
I
don't
want
people
to
to
give
the
the
impression
that
that
is
a
an
absolute
done
deal.
A
It
absolutely
isn't
until
we
want
to
use
this
conversation
and
the
the
work
we've
been
doing
with
them,
with
the
public
directly
to
try
and
build
a
better
view
of
what
that
of.
What
that
might
look
like
moving
forward
just
go
into
the
the
the
summary
so
the
current
summary
page
again
just
ready
for
your
information.
A
You'll
see
the
latest
inspection
report,
your
the
overall,
the
key
questions.
You
may
see
some
information
on
population
groups
and
core
services
where
the
latest
inspection
was
not
a
comprehensive
one.
It
means
that
the
page
is
an
aggregate
from
different
inspections
on
different
dates.
So
if
we
did
a
focus
inspection
where
we
produced
a
rating
in
one
of
the
key
areas
that
may
appear
alongside
a
comprehensive
inspection
which
was
at
a
different
date,
so
that's
how
we
currently
describe
a
service
performing
on
our
on
our
website.
A
Some
of
the
things
we
want
the
new
elements
that
we
want
to
change,
obviously
going
back
to
that
summary
of
people's
experience
of
the
service,
as
well
as
an
overall
summary
of
what
we
think
about
that
service
and
the
same
ratings
position.
That
sort
of
graphic
for
each
of
the
key
questions:
standard
statements
for
each
of
the
key
questions
and
a
link
to
a
full
html
report,
which
is
essentially
a
more
searchable
version
of
the
current
pdf
report.
So
what
that
would
look
like
is
something
like
this
and
again.
A
This
is
very
much
a
any
an
example
that
we
are
currently
testing
and
not
something
you
should
take
of
that.
That
will
be
exactly
how
it
work,
how
it's
how
it
looks
when
we
do
that
work
when
we
produce
this
as
a
final
as
a
final
draft,
so
you
can
see
here
safe
and
some
of
the
where
the
organization
with
regards
to
safe
what
our
assessment
is,
what
the
scores
are
that
underpin
that
assessment
are
safe
and
again
the
same
issues.
People
like
the
graphic
representation
that
they're
less
engaged
with
the
number.
A
So
we've
got
to
think
about
what
does
that?
How
do
we
present
that,
and
in
fact,
do
we
present
it
in
the
same
way
for
providers
and
people
use
services
we
may
not,
we
may
present
it
differently
for
for
those
different
audiences,
the
that's
an
example
of
what
that
would
what
that
would
look
like.
So
in
terms
of
the
all
reports
and
timelines.
So
now
there
was
a
history
of
all
reports
that
we
published
about
service.
If
you
go
on
the
dates
and
descriptions
of
the
development,
so
it
wasn't
about
direct
monitoring.
A
Was
it
a
full
inspection
in
the
future?
We
want
to
keep
that
timeline
linked
to
the
full
reports
on
the
web
pages
right
back
to
registration
dates
and
the
date
that
organization
a
comprehensive
perspective.
This
would
be
on
on
our
view
of
that
organization,
so
we're
not
trying
to
make
any
massive
changes
here,
but
we
are
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
link
registration,
enforce
changes,
enforcement
action.
A
A
They
take
time
for
us
to
write,
but
also
they
take
a
lot
of
time,
people
to
read,
and
we
know
from
our
the
way
with
some
testing
that
we've
already
done,
that
the
html
report
is
not
necessarily
viewed
as
a
something
that
that
people
will
engage
with
well
in
the
future
want
to
provide
a
more
up-to-date
view
of
quality
tailored
to
different
audiences.
So
they
can
use
and
understand
them.
A
The
information
presented,
hopefully
in
a
clearer
way,
with
more
detailed
benchmarking
information
to
help
the
provider
improve
and
also
to
give
a
sense
of
where
the
organization
is
and
for
me,
particularly,
I
want
to
make
want
to
make
sure
that
the
provider's
voice
in
terms
of
what
they
are
doing
about
where
they
are
is
is
critical.
You
can
also
see
in
the
future
a
link
between
where
an
individual
provider
is,
and
indeed
where
the
local
system
is
and
part
of
the
conversation.
A
B
And
then
there
was
also
people
generally
liked
graphics
as
well,
and
we
talked
to.
We
might
have
strayed
a
bit
into
where
beyond
inspection
reports
and
more
into
kind
of
the
provider
portal.
Or
you
know
the
the
kind
of
the
way
people
might
be
able
to
see
and
access
information,
but
talked
about
generally
graphics,
are
easier
to
kind
of
digest
and
see.
B
But
if
people
could
be
able
to
extract
them,
so
thinking
providers
in
particular
when
they're
reporting
to
board,
for
example,
if
they
can
either
create
their
own
kind
of
reports
or
graphics,
that
they
can
then
export
and
use
to
present
back.
That's
that's
a
feature
that
would
be
really
helpful
and
then
kind
of
a
bit
of
a
conversation.
B
About
generally,
when
people
are
looking
at
services
they're,
often
at
a
kind
of
a
crisis
point
where
they
need
to
know
what
the
current
you
know,
the
rating
is
or
the
quality
of
that
service.
And
so
there's
a
question
about
the
time
scales.
And
I
suppose
how
current
the
information
would
be
and
also
a
point
that
sometimes
people's
needs
change
through
assessment.
So
it
might
be
that
they're
looking
for
a
particular
service,
but
then,
while
they're
being
assessed
their
and
their
health
deteriorates,
and
they
need
something
slightly
different.
So
again.
B
Just
thinking
about
that,
I
suppose
the
immediacy
of
the
information
and
kind
of
being
clear
on
on
where
the
information,
when
the
information
was
last
updated
and
then
finally
and
I'll,
see
if
you've
got
anything
to
add
chris.
But
we
also
talked
a
little
bit
about
whether
there
could
be
almost
a
different
view
for
the
public
and
providers.
B
So
thinking
about
the
different
needs
that
they
have
from
our
reports
and
having
kind
of
that
high
level
really
quick,
easy
summary
to
give
an
idea
of
the
picture
of
the
quality
and
then
something
that's
slightly
different
for
providers
where
they
can
go
into
that
detail,
and
it
might
be
that
moving
to
html
anyway
allows
for
that.
But
just
I
suppose
the
point
that
people
have
different
needs
and
from
the
reports
and
how
do
we?
A
C
About
the
the
visuals
and
how
the
visuals
are
very
helpful,
but
they
could
be
a
bit
more
helpful.
For
example,
they
could
tell
a
bit
of
a
story,
for
example,
where
a
service
sits
on
the
rating
scale
in
the
geographical
area,
so
people
are
comparing
services
in
the
local
area.
You
know
they
can
see
that
easily.
On
the
on
the
visual.
C
Also,
I'm
explaining
the
numbers
a
bit
more
as
well.
There's
some
confusion
about
what
does
56
mean?
Is
it
a
percentage?
Is
it
out
of
a
certain
number,
maybe
using
the,
for
example?
If
there's
eighty
percent
are
good,
maybe
having
the
bar
eighty
percent
big
for
for
good
and
then
smaller
for
the
other
ratings,
just
to
kind
of
give
a
clear
picture
of
what
that
means,
and
maybe
perhaps
having
a
video
format
of
the
report
as
well
to
make
it
more
accessible.
C
We
also
talked
about
the
cqc
needing
to
do
more
to
let
people
know
that
a
report
has
been
published
because
people
always
are
on
the
lookout
for
it,
but
they
don't
always
get
an
alert
for
people
to
and
now
that
it's
it's
now
there
and
also-
and
the
report
needs
to.
Let
people
know
what
change
is
required
to
improve
a
rating,
so
we're
giving
a
rating
for
these
areas,
but
we
need
to
make
it
clear
to
providers
and
to
the
public.
C
D
Yeah,
absolutely
we
had
a
really
good
discussion.
Certainly
there
was
agreement
with
some
of
the
points
have
been
raised
already
about
there
needing
to
be
greater
context
to
the
comparator.
If
we're
going
to
do
that,
not
just
in
terms
of
geography
but
also
more
subtly,
perhaps
in
terms
of
service
type,
not
to
be
so,
you
know
not
that
blunt
measure,
not
not
you
know,
one
care
home
is
not
necessarily
the
same
as
another
care
home,
so
some
thoughts
about
the
the
comparison
there.
D
There
was
a
tentative
welcome
to
the
principle
of
showing
the
scoring
in
terms
of
how
close
you
are
to
one
rating,
but
we
had
that
discussion
that
other
groups
have
just
fed
back
about
what?
What
does
that
tell
you,
though,
about
what
service
needs
to
do
to
improve
if
you're
trying
to
learn
from
other
services,
then,
what's
the
detail
there
on
the
basis
of
the
information
that
was
presented
today,
which
isn't
everything
that
we've
got
in
our
back
pocket
and
you
know
we'll
be
sharing
in
due
course.
D
I
think
people
found
the
graphics
themselves
yeah.
There
were
some
less
sharp
images
which
perhaps
didn't
help
people's
understanding,
but
there's
also
the
fact
that
if
you
were
just
looking
at
it,
you
might
need
some
additional
labeling
people
have
talked
haven't
they
already
about.
What's
that?
That's
not
clear!
So
unless
we
add
labeling
or
some
other
description,
it
might
not
be
immediately
obvious.
D
We've
really
really
just
gotten
to
sort
of
discuss
about
that,
but
I
think
that's
important
because
excuse
me,
I
don't
know
I've
got
a
frog
in
my
throat
now
we
talked
about
people's
experience
and
there
was
some
discussion
in
the
group
about
making
sure
that's
balanced
and
that,
of
course,
people's
experience
is
important.
We
should
be
reporting
on
that,
but
that's
not
all
we
should
do
so.
I
think,
just
on
the
basis
of
what
we
shared
today.
D
I
guess
it
left
people
with
some
questions
about
how
the
details
going
to
be
mapped
out,
and
you
know
how
does
this
relate
to
quality
statements
and
will
there
be
scoring
on
quality
statements
and
what
will
be
published.
So
I
guess
people
need
a
bit
more
time
in
these
discussions,
so
it's
really
good
to
hear
that
there
will
be
some
more
time.
So
I
think
those
are
things
to
share
from
my
group,
but
I
haven't
missed
anything
out
major
group
six.
Thank
you
very
much.
E
So
you
know
maybe
tying
it
in
more
to
things
like
the
I
statements,
you
know
that
that
that
that
we
that
we've
got
but
at
all
levels
it's
about
what?
What
does
that
kind
of?
What
does
that
mean
to
to
what
somebody
is
experiencing
the
service
and
and
I'm
talking
about
sort
of
a
quite
a
high
level?
So
obviously
there
will
be
narrative
that
explains
that,
but
this
is
about
how
we
represent
the
ratings
or
the
quality
statements
in
in
that
way,
I
think
the
other
thing
was
around.
E
E
And
how
do
we
make
that
a
bit
clearer,
but
also
there
was
a
sense
about
having,
as
I
said,
sort
of
more
information
available
on
that
overview
page,
but
not
not,
but
but
in
a
obviously
it's
difficult
with
a
static
picture,
but
what
you
can
do
on
an
obviously
a
web
page
so
much
more
around
hover
over
things.
So
when
you
hover
over
the
number,
for
example,
you
could
have
something
that
pops
up.
That
shows
you
actually.
What
was
the
rating
in
in
each
of
the
key
questions
that
there
were.
E
Similarly
linking
back
to
the
I
statements,
was
you
know
when
you
hover
over
inadequate,
even
if
the
service
isn't
inadequate
when
you're
hovering
over
each
of
those
ratings,
a
pop-up
which
says
what
does
that
mean
for
somebody,
you
know
who
uses
the
service
so,
for
example,
inadequate.
It
might
say
you
know,
I
am
not
getting
the
care
that
I
need.
E
You
know
the
service,
you
know
I,
you
know
the
service
is
a
risk.
You
know
of
harm
or
kind
of
whatever
it
may
be,
but
but
sort
of
something
that
that's
using
those
hover
over
boxes.
I
think
that
was.
Oh,
the
only
other
final
point
really
was
just
around
some
concerns
around
standardized
wording,
and
there
was
absolute
recognition
that
an
understanding
about
where
we
are.
E
You
know
in
terms
of
how
that
would
make
life
easier
for
us
and
particularly
from
a
quality
assurance
point
of
view,
but
also
that
it
doesn't
become
a
tick
box
exercise
and
we
were
starting
to
get
into
the
conversation
about
just
because
we
report
something
in
a
certain
way.
It
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
it
would
need
to
be
a
thick
box
exercise
on
site.
E
A
A
We
say
which
is
is
really
important
and
I
think
also
there's
a
we've
talked
a
little
bit
about
the
graphics
and
what
that
looks
like
and
how
that
might,
how
that
might
reflect
both
an
organizational
performance
has
also
been
about
where
services
sit
relative
to
others.
We
talked
about
an
algorithm
through
the
principle
of
you
might
link
to
your
ics
or
local
authority
footprint,
and
also
to
organizations
like
you
that
are
in
different
areas,
but
that
tends
to
have
some
of
similar
social
economic
drivers
standard
wording.
A
For
me,
I
talked
about
this
in
our
group
as
well.
I
so
I,
the
benefit
of
standard
wording
is
actually
for
colleagues
writing
reports,
so
I
I
the
way
the
example
I
gave
is
that
with
the
technology
we
should
be
able
to
see
how
colleagues
have
written
similar
reports
with
similar
information.
What
they've
said.
A
So
I
think
it's
a
useful
guide
for
an
assessor
or
or
inspector
to
say,
yeah
in
when
we
see
information
like
this,
it
tends
to
be
what
we
say
about
the
organization
as
a
guide
for
an
inspector,
but
not
to
try
to
just
use
standard
words
in
themselves.
I
think
it
should
always
reflect
the
the
the
that's
my
my
opinion
anyway,
that
it
should
always
reflect
the
assessor
or
inspector
information.
In
that
way
we
can
deal
with
things
better.
A
I
like
equality,
diversity,
inclusion
and
also
like
the
links
to
wider
system
issues
yeah.
I
think
you
can
do
that
more
clearly
when
you're,
when
you're
able
to
to
make
more
of
a
personal
statement,
so
that
that's
that's
a
you
know
what
it
looks
like
pyle
and
there's
a
sort
of
group
which
is:
do
we
all
have
the
same
view,
which
is:
should
the
information
be
presented
in
certain
different
ways
for
the
people
who
services
and
and
providers
fundamentally
the
same
information?
But
do
you
do
you?
A
Some
of
the
early
feedback
from
from
people
is:
let's
the
ability
to
drill
down
is
important,
but
actually
clear
statements
with
clear
graphics
about
what
the
service
is
doing
is
probably
important
for
a
provider.
Can
they
extract
information
and
produce
their
own
reports
with
the
data
information
that
we
provide
and
how's
that
update?
A
How
might
that
update
be
updated
even
between
the
active
assessments,
so
that
we've
there's
there's
information
that
we
can
provide
that
more
of
an
always-on
view
of
quality
that
supports
both
benchmarking
activity
and
just
generally
understanding
how
services
are
performing
so
that
that
was
in
the
in
the
in?
Do
we
all
have
the
same
view
and
the
last
bit
was
about
a
report
of
what
happens
next?
I
really
like
the
idea
of
the
idea
of
a
video
report
and
inspectors
may
may
or
may
not
like
that,
and
the
alerts
reports
are
really
interesting.