CQC’s plans to revamp GP inspections will not reduce bureaucracy, says royal college

The Care Quality Commission’s proposals to revamp the way it inspects general practices in England will not reduce the bureaucratic burden on practices and should be reconsidered, the Royal College of General Practitioners has said.

The CQC is consulting on plans that would reduce the frequency of inspections for practices that have received “good” or “outstanding” ratings. But the changes would also require practices to share information on quality of care with the regulator and to undergo regulatory reviews annually.

The CQC has not yet announced the outcome of the consultation, which closed on 8 August, but sent a letter to practices on 30 August updating them on the plans. In response, the college released a statement outlining the concerns it had raised in its response to the consultation and said it would continue to press the CQC to modify the proposals.

Martin Marshall, vice chair of the college, said, “The CQC proposals are very disappointing, especially at a time when GPs are struggling to cope with unprecedented pressures of increasing patient demand, insufficient investment, and severe GP shortages.

“Patients deserve good quality care from their general practice, wherever they live. The college supports a revised approach to regulation that will reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on GPs, encourage quality improvement, and promote accountability, while addressing longstanding unacceptable performance.

“But effective regulation must add value to the care of our patients, not detract or distract from the quality of it. Nor should it divert already limited resources away from hard pressed GPs who are working flat out to provide frontline care.

“While some of the proposals may make sense in isolation, collectively they do not address the issue of the growing regulatory and administrative burden on GP practices. In the short term at least, the CQC’s proposals could result in an increase in the administrative burden on practices if they are expected to provide additional information and keep it up to date.”

Marshall said that general practices welcomed some elements of the proposals, such as the longer interval between inspections for good and outstanding practices. But “the overall impact of the regulatory burden on GPs will not be reduced by these proposals, and they are not sufficient to make a significant difference to the day to day workload and working lives of GPs,” he said.

Steve Field, chief inspector of general practice at the CQC, said, “We have written to practices to update them on our inspection programme and the consultation on our new approach. In the consultation document we outlined several ways that we think the inspection programme could evolve to do what it needs to do more efficiently, while recognising the pressures faced by GPs.

“As stated in the letter, the changes are subject to the outcome of the consultation, the response to which has not yet been finalised, so we are not in a position to say precisely what these changes will look like. However, we are working closely with [the royal college] and the BMA on the detail of our proposals so that any changes are implemented in such a way that recognises the pressures faced by GPs and minimises the impact on their workload.”