►
From YouTube: Walkthrough of CQC's new regulatory approach
Description
Hear from Amanda Hutchinson, Head of Policy for Regulatory Change and Lisa Annaly, Head of Analytic Content here at CQC, as they take you through our new regulatory approach.
This video covers:
- Our assessment framework
- Our assessment approach
- What a 'year in the life' of a provider will look like under our new regulatory approach
- Feedback from a recent engagement session we held with over 100 health and social care providers and professionals
- Ways you can stay up to date with the changes CQC is making
A
Hello,
I'm
amanda
hutchinson
and
I'm
the
head
of
policy
for
regulatory
change
at
cqc
and
we're
currently
reviewing
and
updating
the
way
that
we
regulate
in
today's
video
we'll
be
running
through
a
recap
of
of
the
structure
of
our
single
assessment
framework
and
how
we're
going
to
apply
that
and
then
also
talking
in
a
bit
more
detail
about
what
our
assessment
will
look
like
from
the
perspective
of
of
a
provider
and
how
that
might
change.
So
if
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
slide,
please.
A
So,
just
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
our
assessment
framework
to
run
through
this
in
a
bit
more
detail.
Our
assessment
framework
is
built
on
our
five
key
questions
and
well-known
rating
system
and
is
what
we
use
to
set
out
our
view
of
quality
and
make
judgments
we've
drawn
on
work
done
previously
by
think
local
act,
personal
national
voices
and
the
collaboration
for
collaborative
care
on
making
it
real.
They
co-produced
a
personalized
care
and
support
framework
that
can
be
used
by
people
who
work
in
adult
social
care,
health,
housing
and
people
who
use
services.
A
Importantly,
this
sets
out
what
good
and
outstanding
person-centered
care
looks
like
and
what
people
should
expect
from
providers,
commissioners
and
single
and
system
leaders.
We
want
to
use
I
statements
as
the
starting
point
for
our
assessment
framework,
taking
the
important
first
step
towards
truly
regulating
through
the
eyes
of
the
public.
A
We
will
use
this
set
of
statements
in
our
assessments
of
all
sectors
and
service
types
and
at
all
levels,
using
them
to
register
services
with
a
provisional
rating
of
good
through
to
our
new
work.
Looking
at
local
authorities
and
integrated
care
systems,
this
will
be
the
basis
for
our
single
assessment
framework.
A
So
just
to
give
an
example
here
of
what
a
an
I
statement
and
we
statement,
look
like
we've
already
confirmed
that
our
ratings
and
five
key
questions
will
stay
central
to
our
approach,
but
as
a
reference
point
for
our
assessment
framework,
we
want
to
use
I
statements
to
set
out
the
views
and
expectations
of
real
people.
We
hope
that
in
giving
them
a
prominent
place,
they
will
help
focus
the
whole
health
and
social
care
system
on
people
at
a
very
human
and
relatable
level.
A
We're
also
introducing
a
set
of
quality
statements,
pitched
at
the
level
of
good,
replacing
our
current
key
lines
of
inquiry
to
make
things
clearer
for
providers
about
our
expectations
on
them.
To
make
some
of
this
more
tangible.
Here
are
the
two
examples
drawn
from
our
new
assessment
framework
of
an
I
statement
and
a
we
statement
covering
the
topic
area
of
safe
system
pathways
and
transitions,
so
just
to
recap
a
little
more
on
our
assessment
approach.
So
our
assessment
approach
is
the
process.
A
A
As
part
of
this
we'll
set
out
what
evidence
we
always
need
to
collect
and
look
for
at
each
quality
statement,
this
will
vary
depending
on
the
service
type.
For
example,
the
evidence
we
can
collect
in
gp
practices
will
be
different
to
what
we
have
available
to
us
in
an
assessment
of
a
home
care
service.
A
Secondly,
we'll
take
a
planned
approach
to
assessment,
so
our
new
assessment
approach
means
we're
moving
away
from
separate,
monitor,
inspect
and
rate
steps.
Instead,
we'll
use
the
information
from
a
range
of
sources
to
assess
providers
more
frequently
and
in
a
more
flexible
way,
without
being
driven
by
a
previous
rating.
This
is
key
to
us
achieving
our
strategic
ambition
of
providing
an
up-to-date
view
of
quality.
A
We
want
to
take
a
planned
approach
to
how
we
update
our
evidence,
scores
and
rating.
The
starting
point
for
this
is
an
understanding
of
key
priorities
and
issues
in
different
service
types
and
models
of
care.
This
draws
on
what
we
know
from
our
existing
ratings,
as
well
as
trends
from
national
data
sources.
A
We
will
collect
evidence
on
an
ongoing
basis
and
this
will
be
guided
by
our
minimum
evidence-
collection
tables,
but
not
driven
exclusively
by
them.
We
want
to
factor
in
context
and
risk
from
the
local
area
and
support
our
colleagues
to
make
decisions
on
where
they
might
decide
to
increase
evidence,
collection
activities.
A
Data
will
be
presented
to
them
clearly
and
work
in
partnership
with
them.
This
might
mean
that
where
we
know
risk
is
higher
in
a
local
area,
we
could
move
to
carry
out
more
unannounced
inspections
to
check
the
safety
of
a
service
or
increase
engagement
activities
with
people
using
services
to
check
that
our
ratings
reflect
their
experience.
A
A
Moving
on
to
that
flexibility
in
a
more
bit
more
detail,
so
our
site
visits
for
the
purposes
of
gathering
evidence
will
continue
to
be
called
inspections.
We
might
do
this
when
a
service
is
registering
with
us
when
we're
assessing
quality
for
services
already
registered
with
us
or
when
we're
carrying
out
enforcement
activity.
A
A
Ultimately,
inspections
will
remain
a
hugely
valuable
tool,
but
the
difference
will
be
that
time
on
site
will
be
spent,
observing
care
and
the
care
environment,
equipment
and
premises
and
speaking
to
people
using
services
and
staff.
Importantly,
they
are
just
one
way
in
which
we
will
gather
evidence.
A
Many
of
our
assessments
of
quality
will
involve
a
combination
of
methods.
However,
there
will
be
times
when
we
only
use
the
evidence
we
collect
off-site
to
carry
out
an
assessment
of
quality,
but
we'll
be
clear
with
providers
and
the
public
about
the
process
we've
gone
through
in
our
assessment
reports.
A
This
change
in
our
approach
is
central
to
us
maximizing
the
time
we
spend
on
inspection,
as
well
as
giving
a
more
up-to-date
view
of
quality.
But
what
does
this
look
like
in
practice?
As
the
previous
science
slide
indicates,
we
will
collect
evidence
on
an
ongoing
basis.
This
will
be
guided
by
our
minimum
evidence-
collection,
timetables,
but
not
driven
exclusively
by
them,
we'll
start
with
a
national
view,
and
then
we
could
increase
this
depending
on
what
we
know
about
the
service.
A
Our
assessment
process
enables
us
to
build
on
the
professional
judgment
of
our
operational
colleagues
and
use
the
best
available
evidence.
Ultimately,
an
overall
rating
will
be
the
combination
of
scores
at
evidence,
category
level,
quality
statement
and
then
key
question
level.
Let's
look
a
bit
more
at
how
that
process
breaks
down.
A
So
in
order
to
assess
a
particular
quality
statement,
we'll
be
clear
about
which
categories
we
need
to
collect.
Evidence
in
our
teams
will
then
review
the
evidence
that
they
have
against
each
required
evidence
category
and
give
a
score
of
between
one
and
four
based
on
the
strength
of
what
they
find.
We
take
an
average
of
these
scores
to
give
us
a
score
for
that
quality
statement.
A
B
I'm
going
to
take
you
through
what
a
year
of
assessment
could
look
like
I'm
going
to
use
a
home
care
service
as
an
example
to
illustrate
our
new
approach,
and
although
we
focused
on
home
care
for
for
for
this
presentation,
I
hope
this
will
give
you
an
idea
of
how
the
model
will
also
be
applied
in
other
settings.
So
I'm
going
to
start
with
talking
about
this
minimum
timetable
that
amanda's
already
covered
so
for
the
home
care
service.
B
So
we
set
that
minimum
timetable
for
when
we'll
go,
make
sure
that
we've
heard
ever
we've
looked
at
evidence
or
collected
and
collated
evidence
relating
to
those
categories.
But
this
is
only
our
starting
point.
It's
really
clear.
It's
really
important
to
stress
this
is
the
minimum
evidence
collection
that
we
will.
We
will
do
for
this
service.
B
Step
three
is
that
we
then
look
at
that
evidence
and
assess
it
against
each
of
the
the
evidence
categories
for
the
related
quality
statements,
and
we
use
that
information
to
confirm
that
our
judgment
for
those
five
quality
for
five
quality
statements
is
accurate
and
there's
no
change
to
our
rating
and
judgment.
Although
the
evidence
has
been
updated
on
which
we
base
that
rating,
and
so
we
then
in
step
four
publish
that
we've
we've
updated
the
information,
that's
informed
that
rating,
although
the
actual
rating
hasn't
changed
at
step
five.
B
So
a
member
of
staff
who
was
not
familiar
with
the
person
had
supported
them
with
their
medication,
but
that
person
had
refused
medication
on
a
number
of
occasions
with
this
staff
member,
which
had
not
been
reported
and
was
not
discovered
for
a
number
of
weeks.
So
so
in
step.
Seven,
we
initiate
evidence
gathering
against
four
evidence
categories,
so
we
look
at
gathering
information
from
a
number
of
interviews
with
staff
and
leaders.
B
We
find
that
we
have
got
sufficient
evidence
to
show
that
the
the
level
of
the
level
of
service
is
not
meeting
a
good
standard
of
care
and
therefore
we
make
changes
through
our
scoring
to
take
that
down
to
to
a
two
having
started
at
a
three
which
was
equivalent
to
good
at
step.
Eight.
We
then
publish
those
findings
to
our
website
and
update
the
ratings
information
step.
B
So,
as
you
can
see
on
the
screen
here,
if
you
remember
that
this
service
was
at
the
bot
was,
was
a
good
had
a
good
rating,
and
you
can
see
here
from
the
thresholds
that
we're
using
that
there's
at
the
bottom
end
of
a
good
rating.
So
that's
in
the
percentage
score
at
the
the
bottom
of
the
table
and
the
thresholds
that
we
are.
You
are
proposing
to
use
to
award
the
rating.
B
So
on
this
screen,
you
can
see
all
the
quality
statements
that
relate
to
the
safe
key
question
and
what
the
score
is
from
those
to
get
to
a
key
question
rate
key
question
rating.
What
we
look
at
is
the
scores
achieved
for
the
quality
statement
out
of
the
maximum
possible
score
that
could
have
been
achieved
if
all
set,
if
all
of
the
quality
statements
have
been
scored
at
four,
for
example.
B
So
we
calculate
the
rating
based
on
a
proportion
of
this,
of
those
scores
achieved
and
we've
set
some
thresholds
that
align
to
our
rating
scale.
So
so
this
service
starts
off.
With,
with
this
this
profile
of
scores
for
safe
and
on
the
next
slide,
you
can
see
how
that's
changed,
based
on
the
assessment
year
that
we've
just
worked
through
so
based
on
the
activities
that
were
carried
out,
the
evidence,
collection
and
assessment,
and
that
we
looked
at
for
those
particular
quality
statements.
B
B
We
had
an
engagement
session
with
over
100
health
and
social
care
providers
in
may
this
year,
and
we
asked
them
these
two
questions
about
our
new
regulatory
model,
our
single
assessment
framework
and
how
we're
planning
to
to
implement
that
and
all
the
stages
we've
just
been
talking
to
here's.
What
attendees
told
us.
B
And
actually
the
group
I
was
in,
I
could
enjoy
a
bit
of
the
breakout
group
earlier,
but
somebody
made
a
really
good
comment,
which
was
that
that
actually,
a
lot
of
the
areas
are
quite
there's
there's
a
lot
of
continuity
in
this
model.
Yes,
the
clothes
have
changed,
but
actually,
if
you
look
at
the
list
of
focus
areas
for
each
key
question,
you'll
record
you'll
recognize
it.
I
was
at
an
event
yesterday
with
independent
health
providers
and
the
the
group
providers.
I
was
talking
to
were
there's
nothing
in
here.
That
surprises
us.
B
These
are
sorts
of
things
we're
already
focusing
on
and
and
and
for
them
they
didn't
see
for
the
and
they'll
swing
to
people
who
work
in
insurance
teams.
They
didn't
see
this
as
a
huge
leap.
They
saw
it
as
more
precision
in
terms
of
how
we're
making
judgments
and
the
evidence
that
contributes
to
those
they
said
there
would
be
some
changes.
B
They'd
need
to
make,
and
and
we'd
really
like
we're
keen
to
do
some
testing
around
as
the
as
our
fine
as
the
findings
come
out
in
quite
a
different
pattern
to
to
done.
Currently.
What
does
that?
Look
like
for
particularly
for
assurance
teams,
but
for
for
those
in
providers
receiving
those
judgments,
so
but
the
main
message
they
had
was
actually
a
lot
of
the
evidence
we
think
about
today
and
how
we
run
our
services
and
how
we
look
at
quality
internally.
B
We
see
them
translating
there's
some
more
focus,
some
areas
they've
they
raised
with
sustainability
in
the
well-led
key
question.
That
was
one
that
they
needed
to
do
a
bit
more
thinking
about
in
terms
of
evidence,
but
they
they
didn't
they
the
message
there
was
there
weren't
any
surprises,
and
somebody
on
the
call
the
group
I
was
in
earlier
made
the
same
point
about
if
we
focus
on
what
we
need
for
quality
and
our
and
the
impact
on
people
in
our
services.
A
It's
also
about
that
kind
of
more
giving
giving
those
opportunities
to
demonstrate
improvement
as
as
well
as
as
as
well
as
as
looking
for
evidence
of
of
where,
where
services
have
deteriorated,
some
comments
around
the
scoring
and
the
importance
of
that
being
transparent
and
just
checking
through
and-
and
I
think
yes,
a
sense
of
of
that.
This
is
this-
is
going
to
be
important
and
helpful
in
supporting
more
consistent
judgments
but
but
yeah
a
lot.
A
A
I'm
just
going
to
kind
of
pick
randomly
on
a
couple
of
the
room
facilitators
just
to
see
if
there's
anything
that
you
particularly
wanted
to
to
add
to
this
from
from
from
your
room.
So
I'm
going
to
ask
tim
bard
if
you're
still
on
the
call
was,
was
there
anything
that
you
came
through
strongly
from
your
room
that
you'd
like
to
reflect.
C
C
C
If
it
were
to
slip
in
one
domain
or
another,
then
you
know
getting
the
timeliness
of
that
right,
and
one
very
interesting
idea
that
came
up
from
the
group
as
well
was
the
idea
of
a
potential
grace
period
and
that
it's
sometimes
more
helpful
for
a
provider
to
have
the
regulator
coming
along
when
they
started
to
address
a
problem
from
a
hospital
trust
perspective.
So
they
could.
We
could
actually
see
the
full
picture
of
how
they
were
responding
rather
than
right
at
the
beginning,
yeah
lots
of
interesting
ideas.
A
D
You
know
I
mentioned
about
the
provider
also
being
a
lot
more
appropriate
vehicle
and
framework
for
share
information
and
scope
and
nature
of
what
we
used
to
ask
for
probably
won't
quite
be
the
same,
but
on
the
other
flip
side
of
that
is
the
support
for
regular
conversations
on
a
quarterly
basis
with
cqc
and
that
emphasis
on
relationship
management
has
been
a
very,
very
appropriate
frequency
to
gather
some
more
of
that
softer
evidence
yeah.
I
think
that
was
that
was
something
that
came
through
quite
strongly.
A
B
We've
had
some
really
great
feedback
from
people.
Who've
asked
some
really
helpful
questions
of
the
the
new
process
and
there
are
ways
you
can
stay
up
to
date
as
we
continue
to
develop
our
plans.
These
are
all
here
on
the
screen
for
you
and
we're
really
interested
in
getting
feedback
and
questions
to
help
shape
how
we
implement
the
new
model.