"Inspectors looked at just over 60 cases".."All but 2 of these cases were chosen at random" >Why were these 2 chosen? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24833412 …
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY
So were all of these files 'in use' on the day of your visit
@CareQualityComm? If not, with what powers did you acquire the records please?3 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@CareQualityComm I did see in one news report that they looked at historical files.....1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @katemasters67
.
@katemasters67 Really? That's interesting. If that's so, I'd appreciate an answer to my earlier question please@CareQualityComm. Thanks..1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@CareQualityComm well definitely as far as 2012. Flagged by whistleblowers again, wonder how many patient complaints ignored...1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @katemasters67
@katemasters67 Thanks Kate. The@CareQualityComm account hasn't tweeted since we wrote this. Let's see what they say when they return...1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
.
@katemasters67 "Senior managers themselves changed some of the records" Who says managers don't need a statutory duty of candour? Disgrace!1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
.@katemasters67 2 years of Colchester whistleblowing & the CQC were still unable to find it? What were they looking at when they inspected??
-
-
Replying to @katemasters67
@katemasters67 Makes one wonder who gets to tell them what they can/can't look at? Certainly seems ineffective, whoever's calling the shots.0 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.