The report was published of a government-commissioned review into whether ratings of provider performance should be used in health and social care in England. It said that a 'clear gap' had arisen in terms of the provision of comprehensive and trusted information on care quality. The costs and benefits of implementing a ratings system might be favourable for providers of social care and for family doctors, given the potential for choice and the nature of care provided in those settings. The benefits were less certain for hospitals, given the way that ratings were designed and used: a number of conditions would have to be fulfilled for any potential benefits of hospital ratings to be fully realized.
Source: Jennifer Dixon, Martin Bardsley, Emma Churchill, Alisha Davies, William Bains, Mark Dayan, and Irene Papanicolas, Rating Providers for Quality: A Policy Worth Pursuing?, Nuffield Trust
A report by a committee of MPs said that there were continuing shortcomings in the performance of the health and social care regulator for England.
Source: 2012 Accountability Hearing with the Care Quality Commission, Seventh Report (Session 201213), HC 592, House of Commons Health Select Committee, TSO
Links: Report | Additional written evidence | CQC press release | Labour Party press release | RCN press release | NHS Confederation press release | BBC report | Daily Mail report | Guardian report | Public Finance report
A report said that a fresh system was needed to rate the performance of care homes. It emphasized the value of a ratings-based system for social care quality, and said that the Care Quality Commission (the social care regulator) was the body best placed to take on such a scheme.
Source: David Walden, Information Is Power: Why ratings of care services need to return, Voluntary Organisations Disability Group/National Care Forum