Regulator calls for trust and optimism as critics attack the changing face of regulation

This year’s London Care Show served as an apt demonstration of how these are testing times for England’s regulatory body for the care sector, the Care Quality Commission, whose members were hosting a series of seminars designed to reassure those involved with care provision that the shake-up of regulation, in particular the decision to demand that all care providers re-register their services, has been justifiable and necessary in terms of achieving a high performing sector. It was probably clear to those who attended, however – and the usual allocation of seating available at Care Show seminars was not nearly enough to seat the crowd that formed around the seminar theatre on this occasion – that the desire to put questions and voice discontent to seminar speakers at the end of each section was a key factor for many of those who decided to attend.

The anxiety many care providers feel at this time is without doubt understandable, with the transforming regulations, that many have only just become used to since the CQC was formed in 2009, being overturned at a time that coincides with a new Government and economic turmoil that all sectors are under pressure to adjust to. The economic situation has inevitably led to suspicion that new measures being implemented may be driven more by the desire to achieve cost effective regulation, as opposed to being for the good of those who run our precious care services.

The new regulatory techniques themselves are largely based on achieving more transparency through collaboration. Despite calls only last week for more regular inspections, after the case of Northampton care home Parkside House and the neglect that occurred there was revealed, the Commission is looking to maintain a service through which there are a number of ways for care services to present ‘outcome evidence’ that effectively reduces the need for inspection. Providers are informed that, if appropriate and clear information has been shown to local authorities, then inspection may not be necessary. Competencies that need to be demonstrated include actions taken to service user feedback, details of staff expertise and appropriateness to individual care plans, together with measures taken to overcome specific challenges, such as users who do not speak English as a first language.

The CQC are also stressing to all care providers that personalised care packages, an attribute that many companies use to market their services as modern and innovative, will now become a standard required practice, while the regulator confirms its commitment to produce a system that is ‘responsive and reflective’ to professionals’ needs. Though it is clear some issues still remain in flux, most notably the existence of the star ratings system, which according to speakers Helen Lindsey (Provider Assessment Manager) and Simon Spoerer (Methodology Developer) will depend upon feedback from care providers in order to assess the effectiveness of the new system before the CQC fully decide whether it should continue. This uncertainty has frustrated many care home owners who feel they have worked hard to earn their star rating, only to have it taken away and their service potentially devalued, while the announcement that an almost identical star system – likely to be implemented in the social care sector – suggests contradictory messages from the regulator as to their enthusiasm for ratings.

Among the many criticisms outlines by questioners was the often-heard complaint that that, where the CQC fulfils its role as an authority, it fails to succeed as a partner in the industry that many professionals would like to see it become. A related Care Show seminar saw Martin Green of the English Community Care Association go even further than the many providers assembled in order to criticise the last few years of regulation. A particular bone of contention being the opinion that the regulator continues to demand much from care facilities while seeking to have relatively little influence upon the local authorities who are responsible for much of the funding and contracting, and should be pressured into being as responsible in admissions and effective care packages as care homes themselves.

For guidance sake though, perhaps this article’s final thought on the matter should be left to the CQC themselves, who have stressed to the sector that their outlook at this moment in time is versatile and will be greatly influenced by ‘how people think and are affected by developing times’ suggesting that the future will be brighter for those providers that get involved sooner rather than later and answer the regulator’s call for feedback and collaboration, whatever strong opinions they might have regarding the current situation.