Recent Successes: factual accuracy checks and written representations

The Health and Social Care team at Gordons Partnership regularly advises social care providers on receipt of Care Quality Commission notices of proposal and draft inspection reports. This can be a stressful time for providers who may feel as if the regulator is acting based on findings that are not an accurate reflection of the level of service they provide.

Neil Grant and Benjamin Bull recently advised a provider who had received a draft inspection report rating the service as ‘Requires Improvement’ overall and for two of the five key questions. The provider did not agree with the findings, or the way the inspection was carried out, and instructed us to prepare factual accuracy comments and a covering letter.

We were able to liaise with the client to pull together compelling evidence of compliance with the regulations to assert that the ratings should reflect the level of care and be changed to ‘Good’ overall.

One issue we had with the ratings was that two key questions had been rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ with a breach of regulations cited in one but not in the other. This, in effect, rates a key question as ‘Requires Improvement’ when it has been deemed to be compliant with the regulations.

We were able to successfully argue that the ratings applied to the service were disproportionate to the level of risk evident in the draft report and that it was irrational to rate the service as ‘Requires Improvement’ when it was the service’s opinion no breaches were evident.

The draft report has since been amended to ‘Good’ overall following CQC’s review of the additional evidence and legal arguments put forward by us. Indeed, this was the second time we had successfully represented this provider in challenging a draft inspection report, with a report on another of their services being moved from ‘Requires Improvement’ to ‘Good’ the previous year.

A different client instructed us to prepare written representations following receipt of a notice of proposal to cancel their registration. This is an acutely stressful time for providers, particularly as the proportion of proposals that are adopted as decisions by CQC is around 4 out of 5.

We took detailed instructions and made written representations to CQC, citing their own Enforcement Decision Tree, and using evidence to assert that the enforcement action being taken was not proportionate to the level of risk evident at the service.

Whilst the provider accepted a lot of the initial findings; they had taken swift action to rectify the shortcomings and, coupled with our detailed written submissions covering all the issues, were able to convince CQC to withdraw the notice of proposal.

The service in question has since accepted new service users and been rated ‘Good’ overall on a follow up inspection.

The Health and Social Care team at Gordons Partnership is happy to share these positive outcomes with the sector to demonstrate that CQC does listen to providers when compelling evidence, accompanied by persuasive legal argument, is put forward to justify their cases.

Health and Social Care Solicitors

Please feel free to contact us for an initial chat about any regulatory issues you may have with CQC on a confidential, no obligation basis. Neil Grant, who leads the Health and Social Care Team, is contactable on 07968 861242 or via neil@gordonsols.co.uk.

About the Author

Neil Grant
Partner and Health and Social Care Lawyer