The Care Quality Commission had a difficult task in establishing itself and has not so far achieved value for money in regulating the quality and safety of health and adult social care in England. The Commission, formed in 2009, had to merge three existing regulators to establish a new organisation and implement a new regulatory approach, which for the first time integrates health and social care. The Commission's budget is less than the combined budget of its predecessor bodies, even though it has more responsibilities. Even so, it underspent against budget in both 2009-10 and 2010-11. This was partly because it had a significant number of staff vacancies. The process for registering care providers did not go smoothly. Although 21,600 providers are now registered, the timetable for two of the three tranches of registrations was not met. The Commission diverted inspectors from compliance activity to registration work in a bid to meet the timetable. As a result of this and the number of inspector vacancies, the Commission completed only 47 per cent of the target number of compliance reviews between October 2010 and April 2011. Although clearly defined, the Commission's role as a regulator has not always been communicated effectively to the public and providers. In addition, proposals to extend the Commission's role risk distracting the Commission from its core work of regulating health and social care. In the absence of measures of impact, the National Audit Office assessed value for money in terms of whether the Commission delivered what it set out to deliver.

The NAO report on this topic published as HC 1665, session 2010-12 (ISBN 9780102977011)

Following its annual review of the work of the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the Health Committee reports that the bias of the work in the CQC away from its core function of inspection and towards the essentially administrative task of registration, represents a significant distortion of priorities. The Committee reports that: the CQC was established without sufficiently clear and realistic definition of its priorities and objectives; the timescales and resource implications of the functions of the CQC were not properly analysed; the registration process itself was not properly tested and proven before it was rolled out; the CQC failed to draw the implications of these failures adequately to the attention of ministers, Parliament and the public. Consequently, the Committee welcomes the government's decision to postpone registration of GP practices, and recommends that proper planning, including piloting of the model for registration, should be undertaken before the revised date of April 2013 is confirmed. The Committee also welcomes recent announcements that the CQC intends to undertake annual visits of all NHS and social care providers. It goes on to stress the importance of the role of inspectors in assessing the culture in care providers, especially concerning the obligation which rests on all healthcare professionals to raise concerns if they recognise, or ought to have recognised, evidence of failure of professional standards. Each provider organisation should recognise and respect this professional obligation and provide proper security to those professional staff who discharge it effectively.

The failures of Care Quality Commission (CQC) prompted the Department of Health to undertake a performance and capability review which produced a wide range of recommendations. The decision by CQC board member Kay Sheldon to give evidence as a whistleblower added to the controversy. She identified serious failings within the management, organisation, functions and culture of the CQC and it is unacceptable that the CQC failed to address and act on them before she felt compelled to approach the public inquiry. It is clear from the evidence presented by the CQC's outgoing Chair, Jo Williams, and recently appointed Chief Executive, David Behan, that the regulator is aware of the reforms that must be implemented. The CQC's primary focus should be on ensuring that the essential standards it enforces can be interpreted by the public as a guarantee of acceptable standards in care. The CQC's essential standards in their current form do not succeed in this objective. Equally, the CQC must be far more diligent in communicating the outcomes of inspections, especially to residents in social care and their immediate family. In the long-term, the CQC has a role to play in facilitating a culture of challenge and response across health and social care so that identifying and addressing failings becomes a standard process for staff and management. Providers must support staff in raising concerns in order for those staff to meet their own professional duties. Those organisations who fail in this obligation should be refused registration by the CQC.

The Government is committed to involving Parliament in the appointment of key public officials, and nominees for certain positions should be subject to a pre-appointment hearing with the relevant select committee. The hearing would be non-binding, but in the light of the report from the committee, Ministers would decide whether to proceed. On 30 April 2008, the Secretary of State invited the Health Committee to hold a pre-appointment hearing in respect of Baroness Young of Old Scone, the candidate for Chair of the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The Report looks first at the CQC and the role of the Chair, then at the appointment process, and finally considers the suitability of the candidate. The Committee finds that Baroness Young is a suitable candidate for the post, and has the requisite professional competence, independence and integrity.

Enabling power: Health and Social Care Act 2008, ss. 8 (1), 20 (1) to (5A), 35, 86 (2) (4), 87 (1) (2), 161 (3) (4). Issued: 11.07.2014. Made: .- Laid: -. Coming into force: In accord. with reg. 1. Effect: S.I. 2012/921 partially revoked & 2010/781; 2011/2711; 2012/1513 revoked. Territorial extent & classification: E. For approval by resolution of each House of Parliament

Between April 2012-March 2013, the Commission carried out 35,000 inspections of health and social care services in England. The State of Care report brings together their findings about the quality of these services and also takes a special look at the pressures on accident and emergency. It covers quality of the NHS; independent healthcare; adult social care and primary dental care. Some key findings included that 1 in 5 nursing home inspections revealed safety concerns; 47% of problems uncovered in the NHS were judged to have 'major' or 'moderate' impact on patients; 1 in 10 independent healthcare inspections were not meeting standards of safeguarding and safety; and 7% of dental care inspections raised concerns relating to safeguarding and safety

Second in a series of publications from the Institute of Medicine's Quality of Health Care in America project Today's health care providers have more research findings and more technology available to them than ever before. Yet recent reports have raised serious doubts about the quality of health care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm makes an urgent call for fundamental change to close the quality gap. This book recommends a sweeping redesign of the American health care system and provides overarching principles for specific direction for policymakers, health care leaders, clinicians, regulators, purchasers, and others. In this comprehensive volume the committee offers: A set of performance expectations for the 21st century health care system. A set of 10 new rules to guide patient-clinician relationships. A suggested organizing framework to better align the incentives inherent in payment and accountability with improvements in quality. Key steps to promote evidence-based practice and strengthen clinical information systems. Analyzing health care organizations as complex systems, Crossing the Quality Chasm also documents the causes of the quality gap, identifies current practices that impede quality care, and explores how systems approaches can be used to implement change.

In 2015, building on the advances of the Millennium Development Goals, the United Nations adopted Sustainable Development Goals that include an explicit commitment to achieve universal health coverage by 2030. However, enormous gaps remain between what is achievable in human health and where global health stands today, and progress has been both incomplete and unevenly distributed. In order to meet this goal, a deliberate and comprehensive effort is needed to improve the quality of health care services globally. Crossing the Global Quality Chasm: Improving Health Care Worldwide focuses on one particular shortfall in health care affecting global populations: defects in the quality of care. This study reviews the available evidence on the quality of care worldwide and makes recommendations to improve health care quality globally while expanding access to preventive and therapeutic services, with a focus in low-resource areas. Crossing the Global Quality Chasm emphasizes the organization and delivery of safe and effective care at the patient/provider interface. This study explores issues of access to services and commodities, effectiveness, safety, efficiency, and equity. Focusing on front line service delivery that can directly impact health outcomes for individuals and populations, this book will be an essential guide for key stakeholders, governments, donors, health systems, and others involved in health care.

This volume, developed by the Observatory together with OECD, provides an overall conceptual framework for understanding and applying strategies aimed at improving quality of care. Crucially, it summarizes available evidence on different quality strategies and provides recommendations for their implementation. This book is intended to help policy-makers to understand concepts of quality and to support them to evaluate single strategies and combinations of strategies.