CQC Factual Accuracy Challenges - Hempsons

CQC Factual Accuracy Challenges:

Why providers big and small should use them

Factual Accuracy Challenges (FAC) are crucial for ensuring that Care Quality Commission (CQC) reports accurately reflect the quality of services provided.

Feedback from CQC indicates that only large providers are currently challenging reports. However, CQC encourages more challenges from small and medium-sized organisations. This feedback is essential for CQC to improve its processes and ensure fair representation of services.

CQC reports are publicly accessible online indefinitely, serving as a snapshot of your service at a particular time. These reports are read by families, potential users, local authorities, ICB commissioners, the Court of Protection, and even insurance companies. Therefore, it is crucial that they accurately reflect your service.

When and how to challenge

Providers should challenge reports if something doesn't read right. This isn't limited to factual inaccuracies like the number of staff on duty; it includes any aspect that might misrepresent your service. Even if you receive a good rating, you can challenge specific Quality Statements (QS) if they contain inaccuracies or negative portrayals based on isolated incidents.

The FAC process has become more accessible over time. Draft reports now include a link to the FAC process, typically allowing at least 10 working days for challenges to be brought. Providers should not hesitate to ask for extensions, especially during bank holidays or if key personnel are on leave.

Preparing your challenge

Preparation is key when it comes to FAC. Providers should focus on what each QS says and provide relevant evidence without overwhelming CQC with unnecessary information. Sometimes, the same piece of evidence might need to be shared multiple times across different QSs.

For example, a service scores a 1 on the QS "Well Led – Shared Direction and Culture" due to a lack of regular team meetings where staff could share feedback. However, the QS references equality and diversity (E&D) and whether they are actively promoted, and the service has scored a 3 on another QS on

E&D as they have shared sufficient evidence that it is promoted in other ways, but this evidence wasn’t considered. This needs to be challenged, with the evidence being cross referenced and including in the poorly scored QS.

If you missed something during the inspection or did something wrong, produce evidence now to show what you've fixed or what was missed at the time. Small changes in report scoring can significantly impact your service's reputation.

Remember, the inspector is only one part of the process; a computer and an analyst who has never met you complete the team. The accuracy of your report depends on the quality of data and evidence provided.

If you're still unhappy with the FAC outcome, consider a Ratings Review within 15 working days from publication, or file a complaint within 12 months. Though these steps won’t alter the report itself, they could prompt re-training or changes in the inspection team.

To support providers in preparing for their inspections, Hempsons have partnered with Care England to produce a comprehensive toolkit that thoroughly analyses each of the 34 quality statements. It helps providers understand what CQC is looking for and how each QS relates to the fundamental standards of care regulations. By reflecting on compliance and identifying the necessary evidence, providers can showcase their services in the best possible light and secure ratings that truly represent the quality of care they deliver. Find out more here.

Philippa Doyle

Head of Social Care

e: p.doyle@hempsons.co.uk