Its a question of motivation. The motivation to provide accurate information to ensure an accurate report is one thing. To email senior staff asking them to come up with corrections "to influence the ratings" is an entirely different motivation and one CQC say is inappropriate
I'm not sure I understand that? Can you give me an example of such an assumption?
-
-
Yes: do unannounced inspections find more/are they better/more representative than announced? Public seem to think/assume unannounced are better, but is there any evidence?
-
I think we need some definition. E.g. more representative of what? Day to day reality? Then of course unannounced is better. False impression any other way. And 'better' for me is just about accuracy. This shouldn't be a debate. I find the regulatory pussyfooting sickening, tbh.
-
And btw.. when I say unannounced, I really mean it. As in 'Oh sh*t, the inspectors are here!' kind of unannounced. Not how it's been for CQC inspections from my experience.
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.