Wes Streeting Declares CQC "Not Fit For Purpose"

I think you have to bear in mind that it is not in the interest of a small state government to have had a fully functioning inspectorate which published detailed reports identifying failing organisations.

We read - or anyway I have - reports of owners of groups of care homes enjoying lavish lifestyles thanks to their profits.
Some are owned by not-for-profit organisations which seems a better model.
I suppose there is a benchmark figure of what a week’s good care should cost - decent room and food, adequate staffing at appropriate levels etc - in different parts of the country. Providers ought to be asked to justify charges of more than a certain per cent above that.

Anyone who worked for the NHS would have said that the CQC was not fit for purpose - even when it was working 'well'.

And, when we looked at Care Homes for my mum, their reports were hopeless.

Bit of manoeuvring from the last government to the new one? Ball in Labour’s court. I must say that Labour has shown no interest in this aspect of care until gifted it to them….. or have I misunderstood?

We have history, it seems, of supposedly independent regulators failing at their jobs. Ofwat being another noticeable example

Agreed MaizieD:

Ofsted; Ofgem; Ofwat - all not fit for purpose. Then the Ombudsman process - a lengthy, probably expensive system that can make recommendations which are simply ignored by the powers that be, e.g WASPI!

I’m struggling to think of a so-called ‘regulator’ that is fit for purpose.

Why am I not surprised? I think most of us just accept it these days because we know that there’s nothing we can do about it.

If you're interested, this is from the uk. gov. website. Published today:

www.gov.uk/government/news/government-acts-after-report-highlights-failings-at-regulator

We have history, it seems, of supposedly independent regulators failing at their jobs. Ofwat being another noticeable example...

At one GP practice which was awarded 'Good' the CQC interviewed only 4 patients. No idea how they were selected.

I haven't a clue what he's going to do about the CQC, but how can it be anything other than useless when my GP practice receives an overall "good" rating from CQC, but only 61% of patients have a good overall experience of the GP practice and a mere 49% have a good experience of contacting the practice according to a survey by Healthwatch. They don't even have the highest number of patients in the area per FT doctor, although other practices have achieved a higher approval rating.

It appears CQC don't even take into account the patients' actual experience.

I suspect people think Care Homes are making huge profits because they charge huge fees, and it is often repeated that they do make huge profits. I haven’t studied any care homes accounts, and consequently I have no idea whether they make huge profits or not. I just hear the accusation that they do.

What is the evidence that all care homes are making huge profits? Certainly some are, but many aren't and just before COVID 2 big groups went bankrupt.

The problem is that in accounting terms, profits are often declared gross - before deducting all operating costs, organisation and admin, plus any interest they pay on loans and mortgages and that makes profits seem much larger than they are.

Oh RosiesMaw I do share your frustration in the matter of poorly paid workers making significant profits for the owners of care homes. Is it possible for the government to regulate this? I don't know how much they can do.

So, Mr Streeting, what are you going to do about it?
It’s not enough to identify the inadequacies, you need to address them.
A good start might be to regulate the massive profits which must be being made by somebody given the disparity between care home fees - huge- Care assistant wages- often minimum wage and staffing levels.