Care Quality Commission—the second update of care services

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 588-589
Author(s):  
John Tingle
Author(s):  
Stephanie J. Smith ◽  
Martina N. Cummins

The Health Act (2008) Code of Practice on the Prevention and Control of Infections and Related Guidance provides a legal statutory requirement to which all hospital trusts in England should abide to ensure the safety of patients and healthcare workers. There are similar laws in both Scotland and Wales. Prevention and control of healthcare- associated infections (HCAI) remains integral to provide safe, quality patient care and requires an effective management team to implement the Act. In July 2015, a revised Code of Practice was introduced for the prevention and control of HCAI. The Code of Practice is also referred to as the ‘Hygiene Code’ and is regulated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A requirement of this Act is that the board of directors receive an annual report from the Director of Infection Prevention & Control (DIPC), with acknowledgement of the report and approval of a proposed programme of delivery prior to public release and implementation. All trusts must register with the CQC, whose role is to regulate and inspect care services in the public, private, and voluntary sectors in England. Part of the CQC assessment against the Act includes Outcome 8: Cleanliness and Infection Control. Under this outcome the trust is required to demonstrate compliance. The DIPC within an organization will assume responsibility to provide assurances that criteria are met by ensuring regular committee meetings to discuss compliance with standards, monitoring of trends, and provide strategies to reduce HCAI. The trust has to be made accountable for any infection control issues for their staff and patients and have evidence of a clear framework to provide assurances that safety has been met. The IPC Team will implement a plan across their trust that requires quarterly and annual reports to ensure implementation and remedial actions listed and acted on as appropriate. A care bundle is a set of evidence-based interventions that are grouped together to ensure that patients receive optimal management consistently. Ideally, each part of the bundle should be based on evidence from at least one systematic review composed of multiple randomized control trials. Care bundles have been implemented in England since June 2005.


Author(s):  
Catherine Needham ◽  
Kerry Allen ◽  
Kelly Hall

Chapter ten considers these issues, exploring micro-enterprise funding models, which rely heavily on individualised purchasing by people rather than local government contracts. This chapter focuses on four interlinked aspects of micro-enterprises which shape their effectiveness and their likely contribution to future care services. These are: visibility; financial viability; relationship with the local authority; and quality and regulation. These are a combination of factors which are internal and external to the micro-enterprises. They encompass some attributes or structures that the organisations have the power to change and others that lie outside of their control. The chapter concludes that micro-enterprises retain a reliance on formal institutions within the care system – local authorities, the Care Quality Commission – which can limit their scope to ‘break the mould’ when it comes to care and support.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi Snoen Glomsås ◽  
Ingrid Ruud Knutsen ◽  
Mariann Fossum ◽  
Kristin Halvorsen

Abstract Background Public home care for the elderly is a key area in relation to improving health care quality. It is an important political goal to increase elderly people’s involvement in their care and in the use of welfare technology. The aim of this study was to explore elderly service users’ experience of user involvement in the implementation and everyday use of welfare technology in public home care services. Method This qualitative study has an explorative and descriptive design. Sixteen interviews of service users were conducted in five different municipalities over a period of six months. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results Service users receiving public home care service are not a homogenous group, and the participants had different wishes and needs as regards user involvement and the use of welfare technology. The analysis led to four main themes: 1) diverse preferences as regards user involvement, 2) individual differences as regards information, knowledge and training, 3) feeling safe and getting help, and 4) a wish to stay at home for as long as possible. Conclusion The results indicated that user involvement was only to a limited extent an integral part of public home care services. Participants had varying insight into and interest in welfare technology, which was a challenge for user involvement. User involvement must be facilitated and implemented in a gentle way, highlighting autonomy and collaboration, and with the focus on respect, reciprocity and dialogue.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e037999
Author(s):  
Martina Rimmele ◽  
Jenny Wirth ◽  
Sabine Britting ◽  
Thomas Gehr ◽  
Margit Hermann ◽  
...  

IntroductionIn Germany, an efficient and feasible transition from hospital to home for older patients, ensuring continuous care across healthcare settings, has not yet been applied and evaluated. Based on the transitional care model (TCM), this study aims to reduce preventable readmissions of patients ≥75 years of age with a transitional care intervention performed by geriatric-experienced care professionals. The study investigates whether the intervention ensures continuous care during transition and stabilises the care situation of patients at home.Methods and analysesRandomised controlled clinical trial, recruiting between 25 April 2018 and 31 December 2019 in one German hospital in the city of Regensburg. The intervention group is supported by care professionals in the transition process from hospital to home for up to 12 months. Based on TCM, the intervention includes an individual care plan according to a patient’s symptoms, risks, needs and values. The plan is advanced in the domestic situation via personal visits and telephone contacts. All necessary care actions regarding, for example, mobility, residence adjustments, or nutrition, are initiated to be executed by ambulant care services, and are monitored, evaluated and adapted if necessary. In supervising the care plan, the care professionals do not administer active care services themselves but coordinate them. Patients and their caregivers are actively engaged in the care planning and execution. In contrast, the control group receives only usual discharge planning in the hospital and usual ambulatory care.The primary outcome is the all-cause readmission rate assessed using health insurance data within a follow-up of up to 12 months after hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes include care quality, mobility, nutritional and wound situation, and health-related quality of life. They are assessed at baseline, after 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and at the end of study visit. Additionally, the economic efficiency of the intervention will be evaluated.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for the trial was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. Results will be published in peer-reviewed, open-access scientific journals and disseminated at national and international research conferences and through public presentations in the geriatric and healthcare community.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03513159.


BMJ ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 349 (dec12 3) ◽  
pp. g7460-g7460 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. McCartney

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 562-563
Author(s):  
Alan Glasper

Emeritus Professor Alan Glasper, from the University of Southampton, discusses concerns raised by the Care Quality Commission about the imposition of do not resuscitate orders on some patients during the pandemic


2021 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002764
Author(s):  
Catherine Owusuaa ◽  
Irene van Beelen ◽  
Agnes van der Heide ◽  
Carin C D van der Rijt

ObjectivesAccurate assessment that a patient is in the last phase of life is a prerequisite for timely initiation of palliative care in patients with a life-limiting disease, such as advanced cancer or advanced organ failure. Several palliative care quality standards recommend the surprise question (SQ) to identify those patients. Little is known about physicians’ views on identifying and disclosing the last phase of life of patients with different illness trajectories.MethodsData from two focus groups were analysed using thematic analysis with a phenomenological approach.ResultsFifteen medical specialists and general practitioners participated. Participants thought prediction of patients’ last phase of life, i.e. expected death within 1 year, is important. They seemed to find that prediction is more difficult in patients with advanced organ failure compared with cancer. The SQ was considered a useful prognostic tool; its use is facilitated by its simplicity but hampered by its subjective character. The medical specialist was considered mainly responsible for prognosticating and gradually disclosing the last phase. Participants’ reluctance to such disclosure was related to uncertainty around prognostication, concerns about depriving patients of hope, affecting the physician–patient relationship, or a lack of time or availability of palliative care services.ConclusionsPhysicians consider the assessment of patients’ last phase of life important and support use of the SQ in patients with different illness trajectories. However, barriers in disclosing expected death are prognostic uncertainty, possible deprivation of hope, physician–patient relationship, and lack of time or palliative care services. Future studies should examine patients’ preferences for those discussions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 196-200
Author(s):  
Alan Glasper

Emeritus Professor Alan Glasper from the University of Southampton examines why the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has raised serious concerns relating to the use of ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) orders throughout the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-30
Author(s):  
Tracey Jones

Tracey Jones offers help and advice on the daunting prospect of Care Quality Commission registration


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document