Care Quality Commission Registration Rubbish

Having to register by 2011 is a load of rubbish as 90% of dentists will not pass! The outcomes do not all apply to dentists. We want to serve the public, not to get caught up with pen-pushers and qwangos. Please throw this rubbish out.

Why is this idea important?

Having to register by 2011 is a load of rubbish as 90% of dentists will not pass! The outcomes do not all apply to dentists. We want to serve the public, not to get caught up with pen-pushers and qwangos. Please throw this rubbish out.

CQC regisrtation for dentists

This idea is absolutely daft. Dentists are regulated and checked repeatedly. This is only going to increase an already overloaded beaurocratic form filling box ticking without any improvement in outcomes or patient well-being. This is one of those Labour ideas of keeping the unemployment levels low. Please see some sense and repeal this stupid idea.

Why is this idea important?

This idea is absolutely daft. Dentists are regulated and checked repeatedly. This is only going to increase an already overloaded beaurocratic form filling box ticking without any improvement in outcomes or patient well-being. This is one of those Labour ideas of keeping the unemployment levels low. Please see some sense and repeal this stupid idea.

Do NOT scrap the Care Quality Commission!

That's correct! Do NOT scrap the CQC!

There are a number of important healthcare issues in our country. One of the foremost is that of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) e.g. the 'superbug.'

It has been said that the government will not abolish the CQC because these infections are a major public health issue and we are lagging behind many of our European compatriots in combatting this. There are targets on this and, one way or the other, we a need a national system to ensure that they are met.

So far this is all seems very reasonable. I think also, there are some issues with levels of service and care within secondary care environments, 'postcode lotteries' etc. These are aspects that also do need to be examined and dealt with. 

The PROBLEM with the CQC is that it is being rolled out (very soon!) to include primary care providers (e.g. GP practices, dentists etc.) and other ancilliary services (some of whom may even have little or no patient contact).

CQC in its current proposed format:

1) Will be massively expensive to the taxpayer.

2) Will not improve patient care, it will actually worsen it as your doctor/ dentist etc will spend significant amount of time and taxpayer's budget dealing with registration and compliance requirements, instead of focussing on your health.

3) Will miss most of the important patient issues as it wastes its time and money on primary care. Primary care services are already well regulated, most of the workers do a sterling job for their patients, we have robust complaints systems. And you do not need a costly inspectorate to tell which are the bad ones (if primary care patients are not happy they do not come back!)

I would say to Mr. Clegg, definitely DO KEEP the CQC. It absolutely has a role to play and, correctly implemented, there is a potential national health gain to be achieved.

– Focus the CQC on secondary care i.e. hospitals.

– this is, broadly-speaking, where the problems lie e.g. hospital-acquired infection, variation in standards/ availability of service etc. Reducing things like the superbug, and making hospitals places where you go to actually get better, not worse, is good for everyone. 

– In doing so, the Treasury will save a phenomenal amount of money ('policing' all the types of service included in CQC will take a vast amount of time and money from the Government). In this era of budget cuts, I fail to see how the government will be able to continue to fund this inspectorate. 

– remember that there are already (quite rigorous!) inspections systems  (certainly for dental practices, anyway) which could be easily modified at a fraction of the cost of setting up the CQC.

– THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO ACT QUICKLY. My understanding is that hospitals have already undergone registration. In my opinion, any further development of the CQC could be stopped with immediate effect, thus preventing further wastage.

Why is this idea important?

That's correct! Do NOT scrap the CQC!

There are a number of important healthcare issues in our country. One of the foremost is that of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) e.g. the 'superbug.'

It has been said that the government will not abolish the CQC because these infections are a major public health issue and we are lagging behind many of our European compatriots in combatting this. There are targets on this and, one way or the other, we a need a national system to ensure that they are met.

So far this is all seems very reasonable. I think also, there are some issues with levels of service and care within secondary care environments, 'postcode lotteries' etc. These are aspects that also do need to be examined and dealt with. 

The PROBLEM with the CQC is that it is being rolled out (very soon!) to include primary care providers (e.g. GP practices, dentists etc.) and other ancilliary services (some of whom may even have little or no patient contact).

CQC in its current proposed format:

1) Will be massively expensive to the taxpayer.

2) Will not improve patient care, it will actually worsen it as your doctor/ dentist etc will spend significant amount of time and taxpayer's budget dealing with registration and compliance requirements, instead of focussing on your health.

3) Will miss most of the important patient issues as it wastes its time and money on primary care. Primary care services are already well regulated, most of the workers do a sterling job for their patients, we have robust complaints systems. And you do not need a costly inspectorate to tell which are the bad ones (if primary care patients are not happy they do not come back!)

I would say to Mr. Clegg, definitely DO KEEP the CQC. It absolutely has a role to play and, correctly implemented, there is a potential national health gain to be achieved.

– Focus the CQC on secondary care i.e. hospitals.

– this is, broadly-speaking, where the problems lie e.g. hospital-acquired infection, variation in standards/ availability of service etc. Reducing things like the superbug, and making hospitals places where you go to actually get better, not worse, is good for everyone. 

– In doing so, the Treasury will save a phenomenal amount of money ('policing' all the types of service included in CQC will take a vast amount of time and money from the Government). In this era of budget cuts, I fail to see how the government will be able to continue to fund this inspectorate. 

– remember that there are already (quite rigorous!) inspections systems  (certainly for dental practices, anyway) which could be easily modified at a fraction of the cost of setting up the CQC.

– THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO ACT QUICKLY. My understanding is that hospitals have already undergone registration. In my opinion, any further development of the CQC could be stopped with immediate effect, thus preventing further wastage.

Exempt Practices That Are BDA Good Practice Members

Dental Practices are small businesses that are being swamped with increased paperwork and auditing. This combined with increased financial pressure will drive dentists to "hang up their drills". This year alone we will have to provide "the same information" for BDA Good Practice Audits, PCT Annual Reviews, Denplan Accreditation, DRO inspection and probably CQC too.

It is important to comply with legislation and strive for best practice. This is why many practices have joined the BDA Good Practice Scheme.

Why not simply exempt practices from CQC who gain and maintain BDA Good Practice Status?

Why is this idea important?

Dental Practices are small businesses that are being swamped with increased paperwork and auditing. This combined with increased financial pressure will drive dentists to "hang up their drills". This year alone we will have to provide "the same information" for BDA Good Practice Audits, PCT Annual Reviews, Denplan Accreditation, DRO inspection and probably CQC too.

It is important to comply with legislation and strive for best practice. This is why many practices have joined the BDA Good Practice Scheme.

Why not simply exempt practices from CQC who gain and maintain BDA Good Practice Status?

Scrap CQC for dentists

Yet another waste of time and resources in an already over regulated and micro -managed profession. This will achieve nothing more than the regulatory bodied that are already there which at least  have some idea about what is involved in Dentistry. I thought we were supposed to be getting rid of thes layers of unnecessary management.

Why is this idea important?

Yet another waste of time and resources in an already over regulated and micro -managed profession. This will achieve nothing more than the regulatory bodied that are already there which at least  have some idea about what is involved in Dentistry. I thought we were supposed to be getting rid of thes layers of unnecessary management.

Scrap the Care Quality Commission

As a so-called 'super regulator ' it is completely superfluous . An ego  trip for power hungry bureaucrats that will undoubtedly  expand way beyond the original remit, gobbling up scarce NHS resources for no benefit to patients.

Why is this idea important?

As a so-called 'super regulator ' it is completely superfluous . An ego  trip for power hungry bureaucrats that will undoubtedly  expand way beyond the original remit, gobbling up scarce NHS resources for no benefit to patients.

Remove dental professionals from regulation by the Care Quality Commission

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

Why is this idea important?

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

ABOLISH CQC REGISTRATION FOR DENTISTS

Firts of all very slow  web-site, but only to be expected. Why oh why oh why ? have dentists got to register with the CQC quango? We ( despite the general public's opinion) carry out a valuable service which much of the time is extremely stressful, requires unique and well honed people-skills, unique and well honed technical skills, unique and well honed management skills and offers a valuable, and by its nature, extremely precise and well executed service, to patients who think their dentist is fantastic. Dentists are currently regulated by the GDC and their relevant PCT. We undergo inpections, evaluations, we are self governed and work to standards which hospitals, care homes and the like can only dream of. Registration with the CQC will be extremely onerous, it will involve an immense amount of work which will be of no benefit to our patients. No one has managed to convince me that satisfying the 28 outcomes of the CQC will in any way improve the treatment our patients receive, the safety of our patients, or the overall quality of their care. Unfortunately we will have to pay a significant sum of money for the privelege (sic) of this registration. Please! stop this lunacy now

Why is this idea important?

Firts of all very slow  web-site, but only to be expected. Why oh why oh why ? have dentists got to register with the CQC quango? We ( despite the general public's opinion) carry out a valuable service which much of the time is extremely stressful, requires unique and well honed people-skills, unique and well honed technical skills, unique and well honed management skills and offers a valuable, and by its nature, extremely precise and well executed service, to patients who think their dentist is fantastic. Dentists are currently regulated by the GDC and their relevant PCT. We undergo inpections, evaluations, we are self governed and work to standards which hospitals, care homes and the like can only dream of. Registration with the CQC will be extremely onerous, it will involve an immense amount of work which will be of no benefit to our patients. No one has managed to convince me that satisfying the 28 outcomes of the CQC will in any way improve the treatment our patients receive, the safety of our patients, or the overall quality of their care. Unfortunately we will have to pay a significant sum of money for the privelege (sic) of this registration. Please! stop this lunacy now

Re-evaluate the Care Quality Commission

The CQC, previously the Health Care Commission, is there to regulate the provision of medical (and social care). One of the things it has done is raise the bar for the treatment of children so high that many hospitals simply do not find it worthwhile. ironically therefore, the regulators have ended up depriving children of treament, particularly in the private sector. Many nurses have done a job for years and now are told they should no longer perform these same tasks. Yet those that want to harm childen seem to find a way anyway.

Why is this idea important?

The CQC, previously the Health Care Commission, is there to regulate the provision of medical (and social care). One of the things it has done is raise the bar for the treatment of children so high that many hospitals simply do not find it worthwhile. ironically therefore, the regulators have ended up depriving children of treament, particularly in the private sector. Many nurses have done a job for years and now are told they should no longer perform these same tasks. Yet those that want to harm childen seem to find a way anyway.