The CQC spent £99m on a transformation programme which has failed to deliver the ‘vast majority’ of expected benefits, a damning review of its IT failures has found.
An independent review by IT expert Peter Gill has set out the ‘scale of the problems’ that resulted in the ‘failure’ of the CQC’s technology.
The report highlighted technical issues with the way the regulatory platform and provider portal functioned, including an ‘overly complex assessment process’ and ‘poor user experience in registration’.
Chief executive Sir Julian Hartley told MPs earlier this year that around 500 CQC reports were ‘stuck’ in the watchdog’s system and cannot be retrieved due to IT issues.
As of January, there were 14 GP practices whose inspection reports had been delayed for months due to the same IT failures.
The review published this week found that the ‘primary cause’ of these technology issues was ‘failed organisational transformation’, and that IT issues ‘are a visible artifact of the broader failure’ of the CQC.
Mr Gill said that the technology used for the regulatory platform and provider portal are ‘salvageable but require substantial development and rebuilding work’.
His report also revealed that the total spend on the CQC transformation programme – which included the regulatory platform and provider portal – has been £99m from July 2019 to date.
‘The vast majority of the benefits expected to be delivered have not yet been achieved,’ the report concluded.
The review set out 23 recommendations to correct these failings, emphasising the need to ‘extensively engage with and involve users’.
Mr Hartley said the report shows that the way the digital transformation programme was rolled out was ‘completely unacceptable’.
‘It marks a critical moment in terms of where we are, what’s gone wrong and where we’re going and I want to thank the colleagues who have given their time and expertise to help inform it,’ he said.
The chief executive added: ‘I have already started to take steps to address these issues to get us back to delivering our purpose and protecting people from poor care.’
Mr Hartley took over leadership of the CQC in October at the same time as a major review confirmed ‘significant failings’ in the way the watchdog operates.
Last summer, following the interim findings of this review, health secretary Wes Streeting declared that the CQC is ‘not fit for purpose’ and needs ‘increased oversight’.
And at the recent Pulse LIVE London conference, primary care minister Stephen Kinnock said the Government is monitoring the CQC ‘very closely’ and will be ‘ready to step in’ if improvements are not seen.
How much more regulator incompetence does the taxpayer need to put up with? Have CQC-inspections resulted in any General Practice improvements?
‘I have already started to take steps to address these issues to get us back to delivering our purpose and protecting people from poor care’
Who then is protecting patients, NHS healthcare services and NHS or other care staff from the ineptitude of the CQC?
Who is in the CQC is held accountable and faces consequences for the substandard, aberrant decisions & loss of £99,000,000 of potential NHS funding to an organisation imo, with questionable capability and oversight which contrastingly stringently penalises and holds other healthcare organisations to the same accountability it sidesteps ?
“Are they safe?”, “Are they effective?”, “Are they caring?”, “Are they responsive?”, and “Are they well-led?” Questions the £99million spent on need to be asked. Such huge costly blunders in most companies leads to automatic sacking.
99 million pounds…