DOCSLIB.ORG

Care Quality Commission Third Party Review of CQC’S Regulatory Approach Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Care Quality Commission Third Party Review of CQC’S Regulatory Approach Final Report Care Quality Commission Third party review of CQC’s regulatory approach Final report 23 January 2013 This final report has been prepared for the Audit, Risk and Assurance Committee at the Care Quality Commission. No party, other than the Care Quality Commission is entitled to rely on the Final Report for any purpose whatsoever and we accept no responsibility or liability to any other party in respect of the contents of this Final Report. © 2013 Deloitte LLP Deloitte LLP 2 Hardman Street Manchester M3 3HF The Audit, Risk and Assurance Tel: +44 (0) 161 832 3555 Committee www.deloitte.co.uk Care Quality Commission Finsbury Tower 103 - 105 Bunhill Row London EC1Y 8TG 23 January 2013 Dear Sirs, Third party review of the Care Quality Commission’s regulatory approach We have assumed that the information provided to us and management's In accordance with the terms of the purchase order dated 10 September representations are complete, accurate and reliable; we have not 2012 (the ‘Contract’), for the third party review of the regulatory approach independently audited, verified or confirmed their accuracy, at the Care Quality Commission (‘CQC’), we enclose our final report dated completeness or reliability. In particular, no detailed testing regarding the 23 January 2012 (the ‘Final Report’). accuracy of the financial information has been performed. The Final Report has been prepared for the sole use of the CQC and is The matters raised in this report are only those that came to our attention subject to the restrictions on use specified in the Contract. No party, other during the course of our work and are not necessarily a comprehensive than the Care Quality Commission is entitled to rely on the Final Report for statement of all the strengths or weaknesses that may exist or all any purpose whatsoever and we accept no responsibility or liability to any improvements that might be made. Any recommendations for other party in respect of the contents of this Final Report. improvements should be assessed by CQC for their full impact before they are implemented. The Final Report must not, save as expressly provided for in the Contract be recited or referred to in any document, or copied or made available (in Yours faithfully whole or in part) to any other person. The Audit, Risk and Assurance Committee is responsible for determining whether the scope of our work is sufficient for its purposes and we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of these procedures for CQCs purposes. If we were to perform additional procedures, other matters might come to our attention that would be reported to CQC. Deloitte LLP Deloitte LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC303675 and its registered office at 2 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BZ, United Kingdom. Deloitte LLP is the United Kingdom member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (‘DTTL’), a UK private company limited by guarantee, whose member firms are legally separate and independent entities. Please see www.deloitte.co.uk\about for a detailed description of the legal structure of DTT L and its member firms. 2 Care Quality Commission Third party review of CQC regulatory approach © 2013 Deloitte LLP Contacts and contents Page The contacts at Deloitte in connection with this report are: Introduction and scope 4 Steve Bundred Executive Summary 7 Lead reviewer Findings and commentary 11 Dr. Jay Bevington Partner Recommendations 36 Nicky Cooke Appendix 1: Terms of Reference 40 Director Appendix 2: Section 48 of the Health & Social Care Act 2008 43 3 Care Quality Commission Third party review of CQC regulatory approach © 2013 Deloitte LLP Deloitte UK print A4 (21.00 cm x 29.70 cm) Introduction and scope 4 Care Quality Commission Third party review of CQC regulatory approach © 2013 Deloitte LLP Introduction │Executive Summary │ Findings │ Recommendations │Appendices Introduction and scope Project scope Our approach This report sets out the findings of our independent review of the Our approach to delivering the project scope has consisted of: Care Quality Commission’s (‘CQC’) use of its investigation powers as 1. Reviewing documentation which included: set out in Section 48 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in relation to NHS Hospital Trusts and Foundation Trusts to provide • The results of compliance reviews, inspections and assurance to the Audit, Risk and Assurance Committee (‘ARAC’) of: investigations undertaken between April 2010 to August 2012 for each Trust; • the reasonableness and proportionality of CQC’s regulatory • CQC Judgement Framework; activity using investigatory powers (and the procedures underpinning those) using the cases noted as studies; • CQC Guidance about Compliance; • CQC enforcement policy; • the adequacy and proportionality of the use of investigation powers; and • Chronologies for each Trust prepared by CQC; and • Relevant internal policies and Board and • where appropriate, to make recommendations regarding areas management team minutes; and for improvement. • Other relevant information, including risk summit The detailed terms of reference are included in Appendix 1 and the minutes. scope is in line with the Purchase Order dated 10 September 2012. 2. Conducting semi-structured interviews with key CQC Our review focused on three case study acute hospital trusts: personnel; Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust (‘BHRT’); University Hospitals Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation 3. Conducting semi-structured interviews with representatives Trust (‘UHMB’) and Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS from the 2 of the Trusts; Foundation Trust (‘BTT’). CQC had undertaken an investigation at 4. Conducting semi-structured interviews with external both BHRT and UHMB, but although there had been a history of stakeholders including relevant SHAs, other healthcare regulatory concern at BTT the S.48 power had not been used. UHMB regulators including Monitor; and BTT are NHS Foundation Trusts and hence are also subject to 5. Analysing and evaluating the evidence; regulatory powers conferred upon Monitor. 6. Undertaking a feedback session with the ARAC on 30 November 2012 and Board on 12 December 2012. The We would like to thank CQC Board members, staff, and external purpose of these sessions was to provide verbal preliminary stakeholders for their engagement during this project. feedback on the results of our work; and 7. Designing and facilitating a 2hr workshop with the key senior internal stakeholders in the CQC regulatory process to discuss the key issues identified by our review and to test and work through sensible, realistic and pragmatic actions in response to recommendations made. This will take place in early 2013. 5 Care Quality Commission Third party review of CQC regulatory approach © 2013 Deloitte LLP Introduction │Executive Summary │ Findings │ Recommendations │Appendices Introduction (continued) Structure of the report Glossary of terms used throughout this report Our detailed findings in respect of all these matters are set out below under the following headings: • Board oversight of regulatory activity; CQC = The Care Quality Commission • Preliminary decision making; BHRT = Barking, Havering and Redbridge University • Resourcing, methodology and conduct of the investigations; Hospitals NHS Trust • Reporting and impact of the investigations; UHMB = University Hospitals Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust • Liaison with other stakeholders; • Other issues. BTT = Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Our findings comprise a description of what we found in relation to each area along with an series of recommendations. A summary SHA = Strategic Health Authority statement is provided within the Executive Summary. NPA = National Professional Advisors The findings have been mapped against the terms of reference in HCC = The Healthcare Commission Appendix 1. S.48 = Section 48 of the Health & Social Care Act 2008 Next steps S.52 = Section 52 of the National Health Service Act 2006 We recommend that CQC should create an Action Plan that SUIs = Serious Untoward Incidents incorporates how CQC proposes to implement the various recommendations detailed in this report, by when and how the Board will monitor progress. 6 Care Quality Commission Third party review of CQC regulatory approach © 2013 Deloitte LLP Deloitte UK print A4 (21.00 cm x 29.70 cm) Executive Summary 7 Care Quality Commission Third party review of CQC regulatory approach © 2013 Deloitte LLP Deloitte UK print A4 (21.00 cm x 29.70 cm) Executive Summary │Introduction │ Findings │ Recommendations │ Appendices Executive Summary CQC was established in October 2008 and became operationally We would advise that there should be stronger and clearer oversight active on 1 April 2009, when it merged with and replaced the by the CQC Board of strategically significant regulatory decisions of regulatory functions of the previous three regulators: the Healthcare this kind. This would have the added advantage of ensuring that the Commission; the Commission for Social Care Inspection; and the reasons for the decisions are fully documented and the decisions Mental Heath Act Commission. properly recorded. Section 48 of the Health & Social Care Act 2008 gives CQC a useful In the case of BTT, the decision not to launch an investigation was in and potentially very powerful strategic regulatory tool. CQC has our view correct, and remains so, although an investigation could undertaken four investigations under S.48 of the 2008 Act, since NHS nevertheless have been justified on the basis of the criteria applied providers were first registered on 1 April 2010, and has learned to such decisions at several points. BTT is an example of the rapidly from its experience. Therefore it has already taken many of the importance of allowing maximum flexibility for the exercise of actions we might otherwise have suggested based on our review of judgement within a transparent regulatory framework and the CQC the two case study investigations. However, there are further framework provides for this. improvements which can be made and CQC has not yet made use of this tool to its best effect.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The NHS in Wales: Structure and Services (Update)
    The NHS in Wales: Structure and services (update) Abstract This paper updates Research Paper 03/094 and provides briefing on the structure of the NHS in Wales following the restructuring in 2003, and further reforms announced by the First Minister in 2004. May 2005 Members’ Research Service / Gwasanaeth Ymchwil yr Aelodau Members’ Research Service: Enquiry Gwasanaeth Ymchwil yr Aelodau: Ymholiad The NHS in Wales: Structures and Services (update) Dan Stevenson / Steve Boyce May 2005 Paper number: 05/ 023 © Crown copyright 2005 Enquiry no: 04/2661/dps Date: 12 May 2004 This document has been prepared by the Members’ Research Service to provide Assembly Members and their staff with information and for no other purpose. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information is accurate, however, we cannot be held responsible for any inaccuracies found later in the original source material, provided that the original source is not the Members’ Research Service itself. This document does not constitute an expression of opinion by the National Assembly, the Welsh Assembly Government or any other of the Assembly’s constituent parts or connected bodies. Members’ Research Service: Enquiry Gwasanaeth Ymchwil yr Aelodau: Ymholiad Members’ Research Service: Enquiry Gwasanaeth Ymchwil yr Aelodau: Ymholiad Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 2 Recent reforms of the NHS in Wales................................................................... 2 2.1 NHS reforms in Wales up to April 2003 ................................................................. 2 2.2 Main features of the 2003 NHS organisational reforms ......................................... 2 2.3 Background to the 2003 NHS reforms ................................................................... 3 2.4 Reforms announced by the First Minister on 30 November 2004........................... 4 3 The NHS in Wales: Commissioners and Providers of healthcare services ....
    [Show full text]
  • The Four Health Systems of the United Kingdom: How Do They Compare?
    The four health systems of the United Kingdom: how do they compare? Gwyn Bevan, Marina Karanikolos, Jo Exley, Ellen Nolte, Sheelah Connolly and Nicholas Mays Source report April 2014 About this research This report is the fourth in a series dating back to 1999 which looks at how the publicly financed health care systems in the four countries of the UK have fared before and after devolution. The report was commissioned jointly by The Health Foundation and the Nuffield Trust. The research team was led by Nicholas Mays at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The research looks at how the four national health systems compare and how they have performed in terms of quality and productivity before and after devolution. The research also examines performance in North East England, which is acknowledged to be the region that is most comparable to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in terms of socioeconomic and other indicators. This report, along with an accompanying summary report, data appendices, digital outputs and a short report on the history of devolution (to be published later in 2014), are available to download free of charge at www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/compare-uk-health www.health.org.uk/compareUKhealth. Acknowledgements We are grateful: to government statisticians in the four countries for guidance on sources of data, highlighting problems of comparability and for checking the data we have used; for comments on the draft report from anonymous referees and from Vernon Bogdanor, Alec Morton and Laura Schang; and for guidance on national clinical audits from Nick Black and on nursing data from Jim Buchan.
    [Show full text]
  • Frontiers of Health Report V9.Indd
    Social Research Institute Frontiers of performance in the NHS II “Stop looking up to the Department... and start looking out to your local populations and patients” David Nicholson NHS Chief Executive About Ipsos MORI Ipsos MORI is the sum total of two successful research companies, Ipsos UK and MORI, which joined together in October 2005 to create the second largest research company in the UK. We offer a full range of quantitative and qualitative research services, as well as extensive international research capacity. The Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute works closely with national government, local public services and the not-for-profit sector. We help policy makers understand what works in terms of service delivery, and we provide robust evidence to bridge the gulf between the public and politicians — we also provide a host of background information for clients on key policy challenges. The NHS and Public Health research team is a leading provider of research on attitudes of public service users, staff and other stakeholders. The team works extensively with the Department of Health and many Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities on a wide range of issues, from communications approaches to patient satisfaction, using the full range of research techniques. 2 Ipsos MORI: Frontiers of performance in the NHS II Contents Foreword 2 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 6 How is performance measured in the NHS? 6 Structure of the report 9 Part 1 – PCTs 11 1. What factors are associated with positive patient ratings of PCTs? 12 A. The effect of objective performance measures 12 B. Local population factors 16 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report and Accounts 2007-08 Adobe PDF Document 559Kb
    Health Professions Council Annual report and accounts for the year ending 31 March 2008 HC 986 Health Professions Council Annual report and accounts 2007_08 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Articles 44(3) and 46(7) of the Health Professions Order 2001. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 21 July 2008 HC 986 London: The Stationery Office £12.85 © Crown Copyright 2008 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. For any other use of this material please write to Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail: [email protected] ISBN:978 010 295742 6 Contents Part one The Council 4 President’s statement 8 Chief Executive and Registrar’s report 9 Part two Statutory committee reports 10 Conduct and Competence Committee 10 Education and Training Committee 11 Health Committee 13 Investigating Committee 14 Non-statutory committee reports 15 Audit Committee 15 Communications Committee 16 Finance and Resources Committee 17 Part three Communications 18 Campaigns and media 18 The web 19 Events 20 Publications 22 Public affairs and stakeholder communications 23 Policy and standards
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2008-09
    DRIVING IMPROVEMENT THROUGH INDEPENDENT AND OBJECTIVE REVIEW ?\Xck_ZXi\@ejg\ZkfiXk\NXc\j 8eelXcI\gfik)''/$)''0 AXelXip)'(' ?\Xck_ZXi\@ejg\ZkfiXk\NXc\j 9\mXe?flj\ :X\ig_`ccp9lj`e\jjGXib MXeIfX[ :8<IG?@CCP :=/**<; K\c1')0)'0)//,' =Xo1')0)'0)//.. nnn%_`n%fi^%lb ISBN 978 0 7504 5473 5 © Crown copyright January 2010 CMK-22-12-176 E6240910 CONTENTS Page No. Foreword iii 1. Who we are and what we do 1 2. Our work in 2008-09 11 3. Looking ahead 35 i ii Foreword I have pleasure in presenting the fifth annual report of Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (HIW). HIW’s role is to regulate the quality and safety of healthcare in both the NHS and the independent sector. As always, the main purpose of this report is to describe and summarise the outcomes and findings of the work we have taken forward over the past 12 months. The management and delivery of effective healthcare have always presented very considerable challenges. Public expectations and the potential of clinical innovation and technology continue to rise, as does the longevity of our population. The birth rate is also rising. These issues have been confronted head-on in the past decade, with the result that Wales has a more modern and responsive system of healthcare than that which existed even five years ago. The pace of change and the breadth of the Healthcare Standards for Wales, published in 2005, have been major factors in HIW’s own development. Our functions have progressively been added to, for example, through the regulation of independent healthcare and the statutory supervision of midwives since 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Treatment Working?
    Is the treatment working? Progress with the NHS system reform programme Health National report June 2008 The Audit Commission is an The Healthcare Commission works to independent watchdog, driving promote improvements in the quality of economy, efficiency and effectiveness healthcare and public health in England in local public services to deliver better and Wales. outcomes for everyone. In England, we assess and report on the Our work across local government, performance of healthcare organisations health, housing, community safety and in the NHS and independent sector, to fire and rescue services means that we ensure that they are providing a high have a unique perspective. We promote standard of care. We also encourage value for money for taxpayers, covering them to continually improve their £180 billion spent by 11,000 local services and the way they work. public bodies. In Wales, the Healthcare Commission’s As a force for improvement, we work role relates mainly to national reviews in partnership to assess local public that include Wales and to our yearly services and make practical report on the state of healthcare. In this recommendations for promoting a work, we collaborate closely with the better quality of life for people. Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. This report is available on our website at: www.audit-commission.gov.uk Our website contains a searchable version of this report, as well as a textonly version that can easily be copied into other software for wider accessibility. If you require a copy of this report in large
    [Show full text]
  • February 2008 the UK Health Care System
    February 2008 The UK Health Care System Sean Boyle Senior Research Fellow LSE Health and Social Care, London School of Economics and Political Science Who is covered? How is the health system financed? Coverage is universal. All those ‘ordinarily resident’ in the United National Health Service (NHS): The NHS accounts for 86% of total health Kingdom are entitled to health care that is largely free at the point of use. expenditure. It is mainly funded by general taxation (76%), but also by national insurance contributions (19%) and user charges (5%) (Department What is covered? of Health 2006). Apart from the income the NHS receives for the provision of prescription drugs and dentistry services to the general population, there Services: Publicly-funded coverage: the National Health Service (NHS) is some income from other fees and charges, particularly to private patients covers preventative services; inpatient and outpatient (ambulatory) hospital who use NHS services. (specialist) care; physician (general practitioner) services; inpatient and outpatient drugs; dental care; mental health care; learning disabilities; and Private health insurance: A mix of for-profit and not-for-profit insurers rehabilitation. provide supplementary private health insurance. Private insurance offers choice of specialists, avoidance of queues for elective surgery and higher Cost-sharing: There are relatively few cost-sharing arrangements for standards of comfort and privacy than the NHS. It covers 12% of the publicly-covered services. Drugs prescribed by general practitioners are population and accounted for 1% of total health expenditure in 2004. subject to a co-payment (£6.85 per prescription; $13.79), but about 88% of prescriptions are exempt from charges (Department of Health 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • 610 08 HC Substance Misuse Report 1/5/08 9:33 Am Page 14
    Improving services for substance misuse Commissioning drug treatment and harm reduction services Service review © May 2008 Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. This document may be reproduced in whole or in part, in any format or medium for non-commercial purposes, provided that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or misleading context. The source should be acknowledged by showing the document title and © Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection 2008. ISBN 978-1-84562-184-1 Concordat gateway number: 123 Cover photographs from www.johnbirdsall.co.uk Contents The Healthcare Commission 2 The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse 2 Summary 3 Introduction 8 Methodology of the review 11 Key overall results 13 Overall scores 13 Regional variations in results 16 Results for commissioning and systems management 18 Strategic partnerships 20 Assessment of need 21 Drug treatment systems 23 Commissioning practice 24 Performance management 25 Commissioning partnerships 27 Results for harm reduction services 29 Harm reduction embedded in the treatment system 31 Access to harm reduction services 32 Reducing drug-related deaths 34 Staff competence 35 Conclusions and key messages 37 Local commissioning systems 37 Harm reduction services 38 Next steps 39 Appendix: the methodology and development process of the review 40 References 43 Improving services for substance misuse 1 The Healthcare Commission The National Treatment Agency The Healthcare Commission works to promote The National Treatment Agency for Substance improvements in the quality of healthcare and Misuse (NTA) is a special health authority, public health in England and Wales. created by the Government in 2001 to improve the availability, capacity and effectiveness of In England, the Commission assesses and treatment for drug misuse in England.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Literature Review on Effective Regulation: Implications for the Care Quality Commission
    Rapid literature review on effective regulation: Implications for the Care Quality Commission Published: September 2020 Care Quality Commission: Jillian Marsden, Debbie Bazzard, Kathryn Breeze, Andrew De’Ath, and Alison Thwaites With academic advice from Alan Boyd, Alliance Manchester Business School Contents 1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 2 2 Approach ............................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Limitations and mitigations............................................................................ 3 2.2 Defining our terms......................................................................................... 4 3 Findings ............................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Theories, frameworks and models for understanding regulation................... 5 3.1.1 Responsive regulation ............................................................................ 6 3.1.2 Risk regulation regimes .......................................................................... 7 3.1.3 Quality improvement cycle...................................................................... 8 3.1.4 The life cycle model................................................................................ 8 3.1.5 Normalization process theory (NPT)....................................................... 9 3.1.6 System based regulation .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Care Quality Commission
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 08754, 1 May 2020 The Care Quality By Elizabeth Parkin Commission Contents: 1. Key functions 2. Changes to the CQC’s approach 3. Enforcement action 4. Inspections 5. State of Care 6. Major reports www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 The Care Quality Commission Contents Summary 3 1. Key functions 6 History 7 2. Changes to the CQC’s approach 9 Changes following the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Inquiry 9 Proposed changes following inspection at Whorlton Hall 11 3. Enforcement action 12 Enforcement powers 12 Criminal powers 13 Special measures for quality reasons 14 Special measures for finance reasons 15 4. Inspections 16 Frequency of inspections 16 Types of inspections 16 Factual accuracy 17 5. State of Care 18 6. Major reports 19 6.1 Mental health 19 6.2 Local system reviews 21 6.3 Restraint 22 Cover page image copyright Nurse Holding Elderly Patient's Hand by PortaldelSur ES. Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 /image cropped 3 Commons Library Briefing, 18 February 2020 Summary This House of Commons Library briefing explains the statutory role and powers of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) The CQC was established in April 2009 and replaced three former regulatory bodies. The CQC is responsible for the registration, inspection and monitoring of health and adult social care providers, including independent providers, under the Health and Social Care Act 2008. All providers of health and adult social care who carry out “regulated activities” are required to register with the CQC and demonstrate they meet fundamental standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Care Quality Commission – Annual Report and Accounts 2016/17
    Annual report and accounts 2016/17 HC 200 Care Quality Commission Annual report and accounts 2016/17 Presented to Parliament pursuant to paragraph 10(4) of Schedule 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 18 July 2017. HC 200 © Care Quality Commission copyright 2017 The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Care Quality Commission copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries related to this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications Print ISBN 9781474144971 Web ISBN 9781474144988 ID 15051708 07/17 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Contents Who we are and what we do 2 Performance report 4 Foreword 7 Progress against our strategy for 2016 to 2021 10 Performance summary 12 Performance analysis 16 Accountability report 76 Corporate governance report 78 Remuneration and staff report 105 Parliamentary accountability and audit report 121 Certificate and report of the Comptroller and Auditor General 123 to the Houses of Parliament Financial statements 126 Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure 128 Statement of Financial Position 129 Statement of Cash Flows 130 Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity 131 Notes to the financial statements 132 Care Quality Commission Annual report and accounts 2016/17 1 Who we are and what we do Who we are..
    [Show full text]
  • Salford Royal Hospitals Nhs Trust
    Title: National Clinical Guidance Policy Authors Name: Jayne Downey, Associate Director of Governance Scope: TRUSTWIDE Classification: POLICY Replaces: To be read in conjunction with the following documents: Clinical Audit Strategy 2009/10 New or modifications to clinical practice which are not part of an ethical committee approved research programme Unique Identifier: Review Date: March 2011 This document is no longer authorised for use after this date Issue Status: Issue No: 4 Issue Date: January 2008 Authorised by: Clinical Authorisation Date: 07/01/2008 Effectiveness Committee After this document is withdrawn from use it must be kept in an archive for 10 years. Archive: Corporate Policy Archive Date added to Archive: Officer responsible for archive: Associate Director Corporate Governance Policy Statement Clinical guidelines are developed and disseminated to provide a safe, consistent and cost effective approach to the delivery of patient care. This policy supports the commitment and describes the procedures the Trust employs in ensuring that there is a systematic, effective and efficient process in place for implementing, monitoring and evaluating all National Clinical guidance relevant to the business of the organisation and for ensuring that the care and services provided are based upon relevant evidence based best practice Implementation of National Clinical Guidance does not override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make decisions appropriate to the Issue [4] National Clinical Guidance Policy [Sept 2009] Current Version is held on the Intranet Page 1 of 27 Check with Intranet that this printed copy is the latest issue circumstances of the individual patient in consultation with the patient and/or their carer.
    [Show full text]