It would be remiss not the mention that Peter Gill did note that some aspects of the system were said to be working well – specifically in relation to improved data capture. The rub is that ‘culturally data is not seen as a strategic asset’.
Peter quite rightly notes in his report that ‘the CQC is a “data business”, handling (and being reliant upon) large volumes of data at every step of the Service Value Chain (SVC) from contact, notification, registration through assessment, inspection and finally enforcement.’ Not only do CQC seem to think that this information is not important, but a specific example of a data breach was given in the appendices in which it was noted that CQC have absolutely no idea how the breach happened. If that is the case, it seems to suggest there may be many data breaches that have not been identified.
The blind dogmatic attitude of leaders to maintain a positive, yet false, narrative was described as ‘toxic positivity’ and the very clear point made that the system was designed by people who do not use it and who don’t ‘understand the role of an inspector/registration colleague or what and how we regulate.’
