BREAKING NEWS: CQC advisers removed from inspections after duplicating material  

kate Terroni II

Almost 40 care homes are to be reinspected following the discovery that three advisers had provided duplicate material for inspection reports.

The three individuals, none of whom were CQC inspectors, have been removed from inspection activity following the revelations.

Kate Terroni, Chief Inspector of Adult Social Care at the Care Quality Commission, (pictured) said: We have investigated an issue relating to duplicate material used by two experts by experience (ExE) and one specialist adviser (Spa) in a number of CQC inspection reports.

Story continues below

“As soon as we became aware of these issues the individuals concerned were immediately removed from inspection activity.

“Following close analysis and additional peer review, the majority of these reports have been republished without the inclusion of these quotes as they did not affect the rating of the service. There are also a number of locations where, following review, we have decided to reinspect to ensure that the public voice is fully reflected. For those reports where the specialist adviser was involved we will be re-inspecting to ensure that we can be confident in the ratings and findings. All providers affected have now been informed and updates for each location are highlighted on our website.

“We are taking all actions necessary to reduce the risk of this happening again.”

The Times reported that the duplicate material was discovered in 78 inspections all of which, except one in London, were in the north of England. The material has been removed from 40 of the homes which have been able to retain their CQC ratings. However, the remaining 38 care homes will require inspection.

Caroline Barker, Director, Solicitor, of Ridouts, told CHP: “Whilst it is important that CQC has recognised that errors have occurred and are taking steps to assure itself as to the quality of the services being provided by those affected, it is concerning that such a situation has arisen in the first instance.  Providers who have had their latest reports removed have seen, in some cases, historical inspection reports with worse ratings being reinstated.  This could well have a an adverse effect on their reputation; negatively impact their relationships with commissioners and service users and impact their business value.    Whilst CQC has moved to more standardised wording and a simplification of its inspection reports generally, it must ensure that its own governance systems are robust enough to safeguard against this happening again when providers’ businesses could be at risk as a result.”

Tags : CQCInspections
Lee Peart

The author Lee Peart


  1. If CQC seeks to pay less for its EBEs, then it must expect to get what it pays for. AgeUK was a great employer in its day.

    1. No. The regurgitation of report content is wrong under all citcumstances and it’s not excused by the level of payment to authors. If these people weren’t prepared to do the job they contracted for they should have stepped down before being ‘caught’. It’s remiss of the regulator not to have used widely available software to detect plagiarism… and I dare say if they did, a lot of Inspectors would also be facing the music.

  2. I am surprised that this issue has only just been noticed, as someone who reads a lot of reports I have frequently found “cut and paste” elements in the reports.

    1. CQC approve “standardised statements” and since reports became bullety and largely useless it’s difficult to tell one from another.

  3. This extensive review of the Care and Quality Commission is the most difficult I have ever written as my personal experience in seeking their help is truly horrendous. Hence that is why it has taken so long to write objectively.

    My late Mother spent the last 2 years of her life in a local nursing home when I could no longer care for her due to the onset of dementia. Upon one of my frequent visits I noticed bruises on both her wrists that were clearly the shape and outline of hands. It was obvious that my Mother had been physically manhandled but was incapable of telling me what happened.

    As evidence, I took photographs of these bruises on my mobile phone and presented them to the Duty Manager and Nurse who both promised to investigate any possible abuse by members of staff. I also contacted the Barking & Dagenham Adult Social Services Department advising them what had happened. After numerous phones call listening to recorded messages, someone finally answered the phone whose command of the English language was so remedial as to be incomprehensible.

    Upon my return visit to the care home a week later, I was told by the Senior Manager with Deputy Manager in attendance that they were aware that I had also contacted Barking & Dagenham Adult Social Services Department with my complaint. They said that my accusations were both vexatious and unsubstantiated, ignoring the very real photographic evidence, and that if I persisted in them, then would be barred from visiting my Mother.

    My last recourse was to contact the Care and Quality Commission detailing everything I have previously mentioned. Their repeated assurances to return my call to further investigate this case never materialised. This blatant obfuscation took the form of being passed from one department to another within the organisation with not one individual taking responsibility to provide professional assistance.

Leave a Response

Thank you! Your subscription has been confirmed. You'll hear from us soon.
Enter your email to join the thousands of other professionals receiving breaking news from Care Home Professional