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.

Option for dentists to opt out of NHS

Please repeal whatever law allowed dentists to opt out of the NHS. In Aylesbury there is just ONE NHS dentist and every other practice has given up NHS work in favour of more lucrative private dentistry. I suspect that this is true across the whole of Buckinghamshire. 

Why is this idea important?

Please repeal whatever law allowed dentists to opt out of the NHS. In Aylesbury there is just ONE NHS dentist and every other practice has given up NHS work in favour of more lucrative private dentistry. I suspect that this is true across the whole of Buckinghamshire. 

Free uni courses to alleviate NHS Dentist shortage.

Students study for free in return for signing a five year contract with the nhs dentistry service. Failure to complete the term would result in pro rata repayment.

Why is this idea important?

Students study for free in return for signing a five year contract with the nhs dentistry service. Failure to complete the term would result in pro rata repayment.

Amendment of the Dentists Act 1984

 

Dentinal Tubules is an online dental community created for the dental profession to share knowledge, information, ideas and experiences.  We believe that education and knowledge are important in any profession and regulation are important as well. Dentists are regulated by the GDC (as per the Dentists Act 1984)

The Dentists Act 1984 revolved around the General Dental Council, which aims to protect the patient and mantain the high standard of dental education in the United Kingdom.

Yet their over-regulatory framework is setting the profession up for a fall. Regulation is important but it has to be within limits.

We believe the Dentists Act needs to be reviewed, with engagement from the profession it was created to regulate, and thereby allowing a greater trust between the GDC and the profession

We believe that their system …

  1. Is restricted – since they cannot involve themselves in Government policy where many of the problems arise
  2. Creates an environment of increased costs all round which does not help the profession
  3. Creates an environment of extreme caution within the profession such that fear sets in and practical experience is affected
  4. Has degraded practical dental education
  5. Has created an environment of resentment and discontent among dental nurses
  6. Is no longer self regulatory
  7. Is not fair in hearings
  8. Is creating a litigious culture to fluorish

These points are discussed below

We believe our idea is important in order to allow the dental profession to move forward and provide good quality care to patients , without being stifled by an over regulatory body.

Why is this idea important?

 

Dentinal Tubules is an online dental community created for the dental profession to share knowledge, information, ideas and experiences.  We believe that education and knowledge are important in any profession and regulation are important as well. Dentists are regulated by the GDC (as per the Dentists Act 1984)

The Dentists Act 1984 revolved around the General Dental Council, which aims to protect the patient and mantain the high standard of dental education in the United Kingdom.

Yet their over-regulatory framework is setting the profession up for a fall. Regulation is important but it has to be within limits.

We believe the Dentists Act needs to be reviewed, with engagement from the profession it was created to regulate, and thereby allowing a greater trust between the GDC and the profession

We believe that their system …

  1. Is restricted – since they cannot involve themselves in Government policy where many of the problems arise
  2. Creates an environment of increased costs all round which does not help the profession
  3. Creates an environment of extreme caution within the profession such that fear sets in and practical experience is affected
  4. Has degraded practical dental education
  5. Has created an environment of resentment and discontent among dental nurses
  6. Is no longer self regulatory
  7. Is not fair in hearings
  8. Is creating a litigious culture to fluorish

These points are discussed below

We believe our idea is important in order to allow the dental profession to move forward and provide good quality care to patients , without being stifled by an over regulatory body.

Patients should be able to choose which dentist they wish to see

Patients are being forced to see dentists, which their local pct is giving taxpayers money to. Patients cannot see the dentist they wish to see, if that dentist has not been given funding by their pct. Funding should go with the patient and not where the pct's decide. Tony Blair admitted himself that the new contract has failed, and the NHS is pumping in more good money into the system, when it shoud be wisely used, if not cut. The new system of tendering is flawed.

Why is this idea important?

Patients are being forced to see dentists, which their local pct is giving taxpayers money to. Patients cannot see the dentist they wish to see, if that dentist has not been given funding by their pct. Funding should go with the patient and not where the pct's decide. Tony Blair admitted himself that the new contract has failed, and the NHS is pumping in more good money into the system, when it shoud be wisely used, if not cut. The new system of tendering is flawed.

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.
 

Overhaul NHS dental contract systems

There are now a ludicrous amount of people without an NHS dentist & this has to stop. As well as the obvious dental health issues there are serious future heart health implications for a nation with rotting teeth.

The system was excellent in the '70s. Shouldn't we be progressing by 2010? Rather than routinely hearing tales of people extracting their own teeth with pliers?!

It's barbaric.

Why is this idea important?

There are now a ludicrous amount of people without an NHS dentist & this has to stop. As well as the obvious dental health issues there are serious future heart health implications for a nation with rotting teeth.

The system was excellent in the '70s. Shouldn't we be progressing by 2010? Rather than routinely hearing tales of people extracting their own teeth with pliers?!

It's barbaric.