►
From YouTube: Provider review process in the new assessment framework
Description
In this video, Sariat Olatunji, Regulatory Policy Manager, takes us through a new provider review process which will give providers the opportunity to challenge factually incorrect information or incomplete evidence in the process. We explored views on what impacts providers and got their feedback on what else we might need to consider when designing the process.
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; 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
We're
going
to
be
talking
a
bit
about
how
we're
developing
our
thinking
on
how
providers
can
challenge
our
factual,
inaccurate
information
or
incomplete
evidence
in
our
assessment
processes
going
forward
in
a
new
regulatory
framework.
So
that's
when
we
do
an
assessment
which
may
well
include
an
on-site
inspection
and
will
produce
a
draft
document
or
draft
report
equivalent
and
how
you
can
like
give
feedback
on
that,
and
we
just
want
to
use
your
get
your
feedback
today
to
help
shape
that
work.
Further.
A
We
worked
with
think
local
at
personal
t-lap,
National
voices
and
the
Coalition
collaborative
care
or
making
it
real,
and
we
co-produced
the
personalized
care
and
support
framework
that
would
be
used
by
people
who
use
adult
social,
Care,
Health,
housing
and
people
using
services.
So,
most
importantly,
it
sets
out
what
good
and
outstanding
personalized
person-centered
care
looks
like
and
what
people
should
expect
from
providers
and
Commissioners
and
system
leaders,
and
that
really
informed
our
key
questions
going
forward.
A
So
we
use
I
statements
as
a
starting
point
within
our
framework
and
we'll
be
taking
an
important
step
towards
truly
regulating
Through,
The
Eyes
of
people
using
services
and
the
public,
and,
as
the
statements
encapsulate
the
views
and
expectations
of
real
people,
we
feel
that
that's
going
to
be
giving
them
a
prominent
place
within
our
single
assessment
framework
and
help
to
focus
the
Whole.
Health
and
Care
system
on
people
are
very
human
and
relatable
level.
A
Well,
we
use
this
set
of
statements
in
our
assessment
across
all
the
sectors
like
I've
said,
from
from
a
point
of
registration
with
a
provisional
rating
of
good
through
to
our
new
work.
Looking
at
local
authorities
and
integrated
Care
Systems
want
to
be
more
consistent
and
Transplant
our
approach
and
how
make
judgments
on
qualities.
So
it's
addressed
that
we're
developing
we've
developed
a
way
of
categorizing
and
scoring
evidence
as
part
of
our
assessments.
A
A
So
that's
just
a
set
that
just
to
set
the
background
again
about
what
our
new
model
will
look
like
just
recap,
on
the
current
factual
accuracy
process,
which
hopefully
is
providers.
You
will
be
familiar
with
that
when,
when
we've
checked
the
quality
of
our
draft
inspection
report,
we
send
you
a
copy
of
the
documents
to
the
registered
person
and
we
asked
the
provider
to
check
for
accuracy
which
I've
highlighted
factual
accuracy
and
completeness
of
the
information
that
will
read
to
reach
our
judgments
and
our
ratings.
A
And
you
know
10
working
days
that
we
give
for
providers
to
return
their
submission
to
us
in
relation
to
to
the
to
the
draft
inspection
report,
and
we
will
review
and
respond
to
the
submission
decide
whether
amendments
are
needed
before
the
report
is
finalized.
And
you
may
be
familiar
that
once
that's
that
the
reports
finalized
and
providers
also
sent
a
copy
of
what
we've
done,
with
your
submission
comments
and
and
what
changes,
if
at
all,
we've
made
to
them
and
why
the
factual
accuracy
process
check-in
process.
I'll.
A
Just
reiterate:
it's
not
there
for
to
for
providers
to
challenge
an
infection
rating
just
because
they
disagree
with
it
or
how
we
carried
out
our
inspection.
There's
a
different
process
to
if
you
have
concerns
about
how
we've
carried
out
our
inspection
and
that's
either
through
complaining
and
putting
a
complaint
to
cgc
or
requesting
a
ratings
review.
A
Also,
the
factual
accuracy
checking
process
isn't
that
for
challenging
enforcement
activity
that
we're
proposing
or
that
we,
although
we've
initiated,
there's
a
representations
process
that
covers
that
instead
in
the
new
regulatory
model,
we
appreciate,
through
our
our
ongoing
engagements
with
providers
a
public
that
that
an
equivalent
process
would
be
very
much
appreciated
going
forward
and
what
I'm
at
the
moment,
what
we're
calling
our
proposed
provider
review
process.
It
builds
on
the
factual
accuracy
process
in
our
current
model.
A
What
we've
just
referred
to
and
this
provider
review
process
will
be
primarily
through
our
new
provider
portal
and
through
our
regulatory
platform,
but
with
additional
functionality.
So
if
I
just
talk
a
little
bit
about
some
of
the
functionality
that
will
support,
hopefully
support
your
providers
in
terms
of
making
responses
to
us
about
any
draft
assessment
reports.
A
For
example,
there
will
be
like
guides
and
user
guides
just
that
you
might
see
on
and
other
apps
and
and
other
sites
to
support
you
to
make
a
submission
to
us.
They'll
also
be
prompts
around.
You
know
how
long
you
have
before
the
the
submission
has
to
be
before
your
your
submission
deadline
ends.
There'll
also
be
opportunity
for
you
to
request
any
support.
A
You
need
around
accessibility
and
as
well
examples
and
case
studies
that
you'll
be
able
to
use
to
support
you
to
make
the
right
kind
of
submission
to
us
in
real
in
relation
to
to
your
review,
and
so
today
is
just
an
opportunity
to
just
get
your
thoughts
and
feedback
as
we
develop
this
process,
as
I've
explained
earlier,
there's
been
quite
a
lot
of
changes
and
I'll.
Just
talk
a
little
bit
about
our
new
report
format.
A
Now
you
know
what
I've
described
around
our
quality
statements,
change
and
evidence
categories,
and
so
on.
You
can
imagine
the
way
we
reports
will
also
be
very
much
different
to
what
we
we
do
now
at
the
moment.
You
may
be
familiar
that
we
have
long
PDF
reports
that
are
not
always
very
accessible,
take
time
for
us
to
write,
take
a
long
time
for
you
providers
to
go
through
and
for
public
patients
to
also
read
and
understand.
A
And
this
is
this:
helps
us
to
deliver
our
strategic
Ambitions,
particularly
around
smarter
regulation.
So
in
the
new
regulatory
model,
our
assessments
will
vary
in
scale
from
our
current
arrangements.
So,
like
I,
said
our
current
inspections,
they
tend
to
be
sold
by
these
are
quite
involved,
but
in
the
new
new
model,
assessments
won't
always
be
include.
On-Site
inspection
assessments
might
be
totally
remote.
That
will
be
reflecting
on
new
data.
That's
been
that's
been
made
available.
A
Sometimes
when
things
are
rejected
in
terms
of
submissions
you
you
make
because
they're
not
within
the
scope
of
of
the
assessment,
but
we're
looking
at
ways
that
we
can
also
accept
information
that
providers
might
submit
as
a
provider
as
part
of
their
feedback
on
an
assessment.
But
it's
not
directly
relevant
to
the
current
assessment,
but
we
might
want
to
consider
it
as
part
of
a
future
assessment
like
I
said
before,
prompts
and
reminders
to
support
providers
in
in
their
submissions
through
the
portal
before
going
to
the
breakout
room.
A
So
these
are
the
key
three
key
questions
that
we
just
want
you
to
just
think
about
please.
What
are
your
initial
thoughts
are
and
what
I
shared
about
the
provider
review
process
and
what
has
been
helpful
about
the
current
factual
accuracy
process
that
you
feel
that
we
should
keep
and
if
there
are
any
particular
challenges,
any
particular
difficulties
around
engaging
with
that
fat
track
accuracy
process
that
you
are
hoping
will
be
improved
or
removed.
A
A
So
I
know
that
at
some
stage
it
would
be
great
for
us
to
sort
of
come
back
and
show
you
how
it
will
work
in
reality
and
and
I
think
that
will
be
a
lot
more
helpful,
but
so
take
the
point
around
whether
or
not
moving
to
this.
You
know
technological
approach
and
whether
it's
actually
going
to
be
helpful.
A
A
B
If
I
could
just
raise
a
point,
I
would
be
a
bit
concerned.
Provider
of
you
would
open
up
to
more
of
a
challenge.
Factual
accuracy
is
what
it
says
on
the
tin.
Is
it
effectually,
accurate
I?
Think
if
you
call
it
provide
a
review,
your
your
you've
got
quite
an
open-ended
question
there
concerning
what
they're
reviewing
and
it
may
be
that
they're
reviewing
and
commenting
on
things
that
are
outside
of
the
regulatory
process.
So
I
actually
quite
like
that
one.
It's
very
helpful.
A
B
Sometimes
it
is
what
it
is,
and
providers
just
need
to
accept
the
outcome
from
the
inspection
result.
Cqc
has
to
be
transparent,
but
there
sort
of
has
to
be
an
end
point
where
we
say
that's
what
it
is.
That's
the
report,
that's
where
we've
got
to
so
I
think
I,
like
the
idea
of
calling
it
provider
review,
but
I
could
foresee
some
problems
along
the
way.
If
I'm
quite
honest,
thank
you.
That's.
D
Will
there
be
another
chance
for
people
to
feedback
on
this,
because
I
think
some
people
felt
that
they
wanted
to
go
back
to
other
people
and
their
their
kind
of
organizations
and
speak
about
it.
So
they
wondered
whether
and
there'd
be
kind
of
written
consultations
or
comments
or
another
session
on
this
process
that
they
could
feed
into.
C
Should
I
come
back
on
that
Sarah?
Yes,
please!
Yes,
so
so
absolutely
there'll
be
more
opportunities
to
feedback
on
this.
So
both
in
terms
of
well,
you
know
there'll
be
opportunities
for
our
online
engagement
platform,
citizen
lab,
which
I
know
some
people
will
have
used
before,
but
we'll
definitely
have
more
sessions
on
the
on
this
process
as
well
as
kind
of
like
Samia
has
said,
as
it
develops
thinks
a
bit
more
shape.
We'll
come
back
of
come
back
up
some
more
times
to
to
get
people's
views.
C
E
Actually
how
the
how
the
portal
might
function
and
that
it's
really
important
for
corporate
providers
that
they're
able
to
access
and
oversee
the
process
for
their
locations
that
the
registered
managers
in
locations
often
need
support.
But
it's
also
vital
for
the
corporate
providers
to
kind
of
have
that
have
that
oversight
which
is
manageable
at
the
moment
with
the
paper-based
system
will
be.
You
know
possibly
slightly
clunky,
but
kind
of
building
that
functionality
in
would
be
really
important.
A
Absolutely
I
think
that
there's
a
piece
around
how
individuals
within
providers
sort
of
register
within
the
portal
and
that
the
right
people
are
are
the
ones
that
have
access
to
to
all
the
communications.
That's
a
problem
now
that
we
have,
it
might
feel
like
it's
better
paper
basis.
Sometimes
it
the
exact
same
issues
come
up
even
in
a
paper-based
system.
So
it's
about
how
we
guide
providers
to
make
sure
the
right
people
are
other
points
of
contact.
F
Hi
thanks
good
good,
good
conversation
and
and
kind
of
good
question
so
far,
I
was
facilitating
a
group,
one
and
I
think
kind
of
Echo.
Some
of
the
comments
made
already
I
think
I.
Think
generally,
the
group
felt
that
this
was
quite
early.
It
was
quite
difficult
to
comment
on
without,
as
you
as
we've
said
already
seeing
the
portal
seeing
what
the
reports
will
look
like
in
the
future.
F
There
was-
and
it
was
interesting,
I
think
Virginia's
point
about
the
the
factor
accuracy
and
we
did
talk
about
the
name
of
of
the
thing
and
we
were
talking
about
how
do
we
make
it
feel
more
kind
of
collaborative
and
less
combative
and
I
think
you
know
there
is
that
sense
that
factual
accuracy
feels
like
you're
saying
well.
This
is
inaccurate,
which
is
technically
correct,
and
so
I
do
absolutely
agree
with
what
Virginia
says
about
it
says
what
it
is
on
the
tin,
but
also
how
do
we?
F
How
do
we
start
off
that
that
that
process
without
it
with
making
it
feel
like?
Actually,
this
is
about
us
checking.
What
we
found
is
correct
and,
and
you
you
know,
and
it
being
more
of
a
collaborative
thing
rather
than
a
combative
thing,
so
I
think
I
think
that's
the
the
only
other
thing
in.
In
terms
of
that,
we
also
some
of
the
key
things
we
thought
about
was
impartiality
being
important
in
it.
So,
yes,
the
inspector
needs
to
be
a
you
know.
F
The
inspector
needs
to
look
at
it
because
they
were
there
doing
the
inspection
and,
and
they
know
what
they
saw
and
things.
So
actually
there
should
be
a
way
of
sort
of
boxing
off
those
sorts
of
issues,
but
then
actually,
where
there
are
more
kind
of
controversial,
more
difficult
things.
Actually,
how
do
we
get
in
some
impartiality
and
have
people,
maybe
from
other
regions
or
that
weren't
involved
in
it
in
it
kind
of
dealing
with
it?
F
I
think
something
about?
We
also
talked
about
small.
The
reports
are
shorter.
Will
that
make
the
factual
agency
process
harder
because
there'll
be
judgments
but
with
less
information.
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
we
talked
about
is
is
what
will
provide
us
see.
You
know.
Obviously,
they
may
well
see
the
data,
that's
you
know
that
they've
put
onto
the
system
and
that
may
be
paid
back,
but
will
they
also
see
all
the
data
and
information
that
we've
collected
on
assessment?
F
A
Yeah,
it's
really
helpful
I
think
some
of
these
points
around
the
data,
what
we're
seeing
around
the
reports,
formats
and
so
on,
are
ongoing
conversations,
particularly
with
the
data
and
insight
team
and
I.
Think
some
of
that
Clarity
will
come
when
we've
kind
of
progressed
that
in
a
way
to
show
you
a
product,
show
your
portal
walk
through
and
things
like
that.
G
Hi
yeah
I
was
facilitating
group
seven,
so
yeah
basically
agree
with
what's
been
said
before,
but
the
three
things
that
came
up
were
in
answer
to
question
one.
The
group
was
generally
in
favor
we're
keeping
up
with
the
changing
Tech
and
making
it
more
interactive
and
using
the
portal
rather
than
the
paper-based
or
the
partially
paper-based
system,
as
is
commonly
the
case
and
and
that's
a
positive
and
the
broad
Strokes
of
the
presentation,
look
good.
G
It's
it's
an
early
stage
generally
couldn't
find
anything
like
to
keep
the
processor
that
is
Gen
that
is
commonly
there
as
a
change.
The
thing
that
strongly
felt
was
that
they
were
Keen
for
more
clarity
between
the
factory
process
and
how
to
challenge
judgments
and
the
differences
between
that
being
clever
and
and
just
a
general
Point,
which
wasn't
one
of
the
questions
of
those,
but
to
focus
upon
care,
not
not
regulations
and
and
through
the
care
and
keeping
things
simple.
So
things
are
straightforward
and
easy
to
understand.