Dear Care Quality Commission,

It has recently been revealed that CQC advisers, two experts by experience (ExE) and one specialist adviser (Spa), were removed from inspections after duplicate material was discovered.

In the interest of the public, can the CQC please provide the following information;

1. A complete list of all homes and their location to which the duplicate material relates.

2. A complete list of providers to which the duplicate material relates.

3. The time that passed between inspection to the discovery of duplicated material. Please provide separate figures if inspection or report dates vary.

Yours faithfully

Chris Bury

Information Access, Care Quality Commission

Our Ref: CQC IAT 1920 0966

 

Dear Mr Bury

 

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 22 January 2020, in
which you made a request for information. Your correspondence was received
by CQC on the same day.

 

Your request is as follows:

 

“It has recently been revealed that CQC advisers, two experts by
experience (ExE) and one specialist adviser (Spa), were removed from
inspections after duplicate material was discovered.

 

In the interest of the public, can the CQC please provide the following
information;

 

1. A complete list of all homes and their location to which the duplicate
material relates.

 

2. A complete list of providers to which the duplicate material relates.

 

3. The time that passed between inspection to the discovery of duplicated
material. Please provide separate figures if inspection or report dates
vary.”

 

CQC will consider your request in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

 

Our statutory deadline for response is 19 February 2020, but we will in
any event endeavour to respond as soon as possible.

 

We will write to you if we are unable to meet this deadline.

 

The information you have requested may be subject to an exemption from the
right to know. Should this occur, we will explain the reasons why when we
respond.

 

Kind regards

 

 

The Information Access Team

Governance and Legal Services

Customer & Corporate Services Directorate

Care Quality Commission

Citygate

Gallowgate

Newcastle upon Tyne

NE1 4PA

 

Email: [CQC request email]

 

show quoted sections

Information Access, Care Quality Commission

Dear Mr Bury,

 

Our Ref: CQC IAT 1920 0966

 

I write in response to your correspondence of 22 January 2020 in which you
asked for the following information.  We are now able to make a partial
disclosure to you in relation to the first two limbs of your request.

 

“It has recently been revealed that CQC advisers, two experts by
experience (ExE) and one specialist adviser (Spa), were removed from
inspections after duplicate material was discovered.

 

In the interest of the public, can the CQC please provide the following
information;

 

1. A complete list of all homes and their location to which the duplicate
material relates.

 

2. A complete list of providers to which the duplicate material relates.

 

3. The time that passed between inspection to the discovery of duplicated
material. Please provide separate figures if inspection or report dates
vary.”

 

The Information Access team has now coordinated a response to the first
two limbs of your request. CQC has considered your request in accordance
with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Our first obligation
under the legislation is to confirm whether we do or do not hold the
requested information.

 

In accordance with section 1(1) of FOIA we are able to confirm that CQC
does hold recorded information in relation to this matter. We can confirm
that the information requested at limbs 1 and 2 of your request has now
been published on our website.

 

You can find a statement from Kate Terroni, Chief Inspector of Adult
Social Care at the Care Quality Commission about this issue, along with a
comprehensive list of the services affected, via the link below:

 

[1]https://www.cqc.org.uk/news/stories/cqc-...

 

The list of services contains links through to the CQC care directory
where you can find inspection reports and provider details for each
affected service. 

 

We hope this information is helpful.

 

We will respond to the third limb on or before the statutory deadline of
19 February 2020, but we will in any event endeavour to respond as soon as
possible.

 

We will write to you if we are unable to meet this deadline.

 

Kind regards

 

Information Access Team

Governance and Legal Services

Customer & Corporate Services Directorate

Care Quality Commission

Citygate

Gallowgate

Newcastle upon Tyne

NE1 4PA

 

Email: [CQC request email]

 

show quoted sections

Chris Bury left an annotation ()

'This issue relates to 78 inspections: 77 in the North and one in London. Please see full list of locations, including action being taken, below.'

The above is inaccurate. Working by provided data and maps locations, one service is clearly in Wiltshire:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...

Dear Information Access,

Thank you for the previous response.

Additionally, can the CQC please clarify and verify whether the CQC statement and data published regarding the duplicate material is accurate regarding both numbers and locations?

Further, can the CQC comment on the article published by nursing times (link below) as figures appear significantly different?: https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/social...

Yours sincerely,

Chris Bury

Information Access, Care Quality Commission

Dear Mr Bury

We were aiming to respond to the final part of your request and your additional questions today. Unfortunately this has not been possible.

I apologise for this delay. We anticipate sending the response no later than Wednesday 26 February.

Kind regards

Information Access Team

Governance and Legal Services

Customer & Corporate Services Directorate

Care Quality Commission

Citygate

Gallowgate

Newcastle upon Tyne

NE1 4PA

-------------- The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please notify us immediately by clicking "Reply" and delete the email. Please note that neither the Care Quality Commission nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Care Quality Commission. Information on how the Care Quality Commission processes personal data is available here http://www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/our-polic...

Information Access, Care Quality Commission

Dear Mr Bury

On 22 January, you made a request for a list of the homes and providers affected by the issue relating to duplicate material used by two Experts by Experience (ExE) and one Specialist Advisor (SpA) in a number of inspection reports.

CQC responded to that request on 27 January by advising you that a list of those services had been published on the CQC website.

You had also asked for the following information:

1.The time that passed between inspection to the discovery of duplicated material. Please provide separate figures if inspection or report dates vary.

And you subsequently asked, on 9 February:

2.Additionally, can the CQC please clarify and verify whether the CQC statement and data published regarding the duplicate material is accurate regarding both numbers and locations?

3.Further, can the CQC comment on the article published by nursing times (link below) as figures appear significantly different?: https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/social...

In answer to these questions, I can advise as follows.

Question 1. Providing a full answer to this part of your request would exceed the cost limit of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). We are therefore refusing to answer this question in full but can provide a general response.

A significant project of work, involving multiple CQC Inspectors and other staff, was required to review a large number of reports to identify duplications. Reviewing the documentation and communications from this work, held by all those involved, to identify the specific date upon which each of the 108 services from the list were recorded as being affected would be a very significant task. To answer your question, we would also be required to check our central record systems to extract the dates of inspection for each of these locations and compile them into a log to allow the calculation of time passed between inspection and discovery of the duplication. In all, I am satisfied that this work would exceed the FOIA limit of 18 working hours. We are therefore refusing this part of your request under section 12 of FOIA.

However, we can advise that the first issue of duplication by an ExE was discovered on 16 October 2019. We then conducted a review which identified all 108 affected locations on the published list by 10 January 2020.

The published list contains links to the relevant provider/location pages on our website. You can access the relevant page for each service by clicking on the name of the home in the list. Those pages each include a banner advising of the original publication date of the withdrawn or amended report. Where an amended report has been published, the date of inspection is included in the report and in the summary of the report published on the webpage.

Question 2. The published statement and data was an accurate reflection of the position on the date of publication (27 January). An updated list was published on 19 February 2020.

Two services have been removed. One of those services (Fulwood Lodge Care Home) has closed so will not be re-inspected. We have identified that the SpA in question was not, as we previously understood, involved in the inspection of another (Windsor Care Home).

One service has been added (Lindisfarne Ouston) as the need to re-inspect this location has recently been identified.

Question 3. This is not an FOIA question, as it is a request for an opinion rather than for recorded information held by CQC. However, the figures in the report are the same as the figures published by CQC on 27 January 2020 (108 reports in total, consisting of 78 involving the ExE – of which 38 would be re-inspected – and 30 involving the SpA).

If you are unhappy with CQC's decision to apply the section 12 exemption on the basis of cost, you can ask us to conduct an internal review. Following review, you would have a right to ask the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to conduct an independent review. See www.ico.org.uk for more information on your rights.

Alternatively, you may wish to submit a revised request that is more likely to fall within the cost limit of FOIA.

The cost limit for public authorities such as CQC is £450, which may be calculated at £25 per working hour so therefore equals 18 hours of work. We anticipate that providing a list of dates for the 67 inspections where the reports have been withdrawn pending re-inspection would take approximately 2-3 hours work. Identifying the dates upon which each individual service was recognised as requiring re-inspection would be much more time-consuming (and it is possible that we will not hold recorded data for them all) as we do not have a central log. We would need to review records held by all members of the team involved in this review.

If there are specific services that you are interested in, we anticipate that we could carry out checks to try and identify the exact dates of discovery for 12 within the FOIA cost limit. As noted above. However, we would ask you to consider the value of conducting such a check, and we hope that the general information we have given as to the timeline of the review process will be adequate for your needs.

I hope that this is helpful to you.

Kind regards

Information Access Team

Governance and Legal Services

Customer & Corporate Services Directorate

Care Quality Commission

Citygate

Gallowgate

Newcastle upon Tyne

NE1 4PA

-------------- The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please notify us immediately by clicking "Reply" and delete the email. Please note that neither the Care Quality Commission nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Care Quality Commission. Information on how the Care Quality Commission processes personal data is available here http://www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/our-polic...

Chris Bury left an annotation ()

CQC published updated inaccurate information regarding locations of CQC duplicate material in inspection reports.
Map updated 12-03-2020

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...