Care Quality Commission (CQC) reports

I think when you mentioned that you had been contacted by people thinking this to be a breakthrough in regulation you hit the nail on the head. The problem is that these initiatives make the situation worse, not better, by virtue of the fact they only serve to further cloud the underlying issues and create the illusion of regulation. What is more troubling to me is that the problem of regulation, or lack thereof, seems endemic through the entire private medical industry. BUPA, for example, is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority despite the fact they offer medical advice to patients. If you complain to them about treatment, your complaint will, if you go so far (as I have) be decided upon by an ombudsman who will evaluate the complaint on the basis of whether any insurance contract has been broken, not whether the medical advice was right or proper. The MHRA will oversee the suitability of a lens to be implanted, not whether the lens is actually any good (and in fact they don't even do this, they take the word of a notified body working with the manufacturers in another European country under the CE scheme). As for refractive surgery clinics themselves, regulating them as the CQC purports now to be seems to be an exercise of walking in, counting the scanners and walking out again. You have already highlighted the ineffectual regulation of surgeons by the GMC; the extraordinary discrepancy between the number of refractive surgeons who are being sanctioned by the GMC (zero, I think) as opposed to the number of cases of litigation being brought against refractive surgeons (hundreds at least) makes a mockery of this so-called protection of standards and patients. We know the RCO is effectively powerless and at the mercy of the industry. And as for the root of the problem; we have seen how companies such as Optical Express hide behind a web of shell companies and frequently avoid litigation by passing both profits and losses between them and winding trading entities up. The directors of such companies seem prepared to go to practically any length in order to shuffle their ill-gotten gains around. And all the time the government play into the hands of the individuals behind this sub-standard industry by making the mistake of assuming positive intent.
The only effective form of regulation in this industry would be to force accountability upon named individuals. It isn't good enough for a surgeon to be allowed to abdicate responsibility for guaranteeing informed consent, it isn't good enough for the owner of a group to avoid culpability by dissolving companies. The government need to wake up to the fact that they are being played and out-played here, and act to actually get in the game.

When I read this announcement from Jeremy Hunt earlier today I thought it pointless to comment because I don’t think it has any value in relation to refractive eye surgery.
www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/21/...P=Share_iOSApp_Other

However, after being contacted by a few excited people who mistakenly understood it to be some kind of breakthrough in regard to regulation, I will comment...

• The Department of Health said: "Shining a light on poor care in this manner is an essential part of developing an open and honest learning culture, where mistakes are acted upon and prevented from reoccurring."

If only! The government is fully aware of the high numbers of patients damaged by the high street industry yet choose to do nothing, repeatedly claiming that the clinics/surgeons are regulated by the GMC, CQC and RCOphth - they are NOT!

• "Since the PIP breast implant scandal in 2012, we have made good progress raising the standards of care in the cosmetics industry so patients can feel confident they are getting the best care from professionals with the right qualifications.”

I have no idea whether or not anything has changed in the cosmetics industry, but what about the refractive eye surgery industry?

• "Up to 100 cosmetic surgery clinics will be given transparent ratings that will give potential users a simple guide to the quality of the clinics in their area. There will be four ratings: outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.”

The CQC will rate a clinic’s facilities - NOT the surgeons! Also, it’s wrong to include refractive surgery under the cosmetic umbrella as it minimises the seriousness of eye surgery.

Only government regulation can make the difference so desperately needed to stop this scandalous industry acting as they do!

Meanwhile, perhaps Jeremy Hunt would like to come and hang out with the fairies at the bottom of my garden, while I wait to see how many excuses the new health minister (Nicola Blackwood) will give to avoid meeting me before the next general election!

The RCOphth logo removed from the MediDate site following my emailing the College just a few hours ago...

Original story here: www.facebook.com/OERML

The CQC logo should be gone tomorrow, while I have still to put in my complaint to the ASA.

However, already unimpressed with the CQC, this message has added to my concerns

'On 3 May 2016, at 16:35, Kerswell, Nick wrote:

Dear Sasha

Thank you for this. I have passed this onto a colleague who assures me she will contact the organisation to ask them to remove the logo … as well as the misinformation that the laser eye sector is unregulated and that people are receiving poor quality laser eye surgery.

Thanks
Nick Kerswell
Head of Regional Engagement
Care Quality Commission'

I replied...

'Hi Nick,

Re 'as well as the misinformation that the laser eye sector is unregulated and that people are receiving poor quality laser eye surgery.’

The latter part of that is possibly the only truth on the site, posted after speaking with me in March!

The eye sector IS unregulated and tens of thousands of people have received far worse than poor quality surgery - significantly high numbers in litigation after being left with irreparably damaged vision.

This is why John McDonnell and I have been campaigning for government regulation since 2012!

According to a letter from Ben Gummer, the CQC made ‘minimal changes to its core service framework’ following evaluation of this pilot: www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-386212981

With respect, the CQC are out of their depth in this area with no idea of what’s actually going on.

Best wishes,
Sasha'

It seems I should have gone to Optimax in Maidstone if this CQC report is to be taken seriously!
www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-386212981

Me to CQC
Sent: 13 April 2016 11:48
To: enquiries@cqc.org.uk
Subject: Laser eye surgery clinics...
Importance: High

Dear CCQ…

According to health minister Ben Gummer (to Theresa Villiers), the CQC undertook two pilot inspections of single specialty services and non-hospital acute services in 2015.

Mr Gummer wrote that a laser eye surgery provider was included in the first pilot between April and June 2015 and that the report is available on the CQC website by searching ‘laser eye clinics’. Also according to Mr Gummer, following evaluation of the pilot, the CQC made minimal changes to its core service framework.

However, I am unable to find this information, as were the CQC customer services.

I would therefore appreciate your help.

Many thanks,
Sasha Rodoy

CQC to me
20 Apr 2016, at 12:09, Terri Salt wrote:

Hello Mr Rodoy,

This has landed in my inbox as one of the inspection managers who was on the pilot for the laser eye services inspections. We went to Optimax Maidstone and the published report can be found at www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-386212981 If you search the website put Optimax in as the service name and Maidstone as the location. I have copied in Zoe Nixon, as she is the lead inspector for the service and will be your point of contact with CQC.

Please come back to me if I can be of further assistance

Best wishes

Terri
Terri Salt
Inspection Manager (Hospitals)

Excerpts from the report
• Staff ensured that patients and those close to them received adequate psychological support.
I am aware that a number of damaged patients received, or were offered, post op psychological counselling paid by Optimax. If anyone was offered this before surgery please post details.

• This report describes our judgement of the quality of care at this hospital. It is based on a combination of what we found when we inspected and a review of all information available to CQC in including information given to us from patients, the public and other organisations.
Which 'other organisations', why didn't the CQC speak to me? Are they incredibly gullible or guilty of something more?

Report signed off by Sir Mike Richards (Page 2)

I will be calling Zoe Nixon

Care Quality Commission (CQC) hierarchy... 'nuff said

• Sir Mike Richards - Chief Inspector of Hospitals
(Line Manager David Behan)
www.cqc.org.uk/content/professor-sir-mike-richards

• David Behan - Chief Executive
(Line Manager Michael Mire)
www.cqc.org.uk/content/david-behan-cbe

• Michael Mire - Interim Chair
www.cqc.org.uk/content/michael-mire

"Michael (Mire) is on the board of Aviva plc, where he is a non-executive director and a member of the Risk and Governance Committees, and is a Senior Advisor to Lazard, the investment bank.”
www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20150...l_mire_doI_05_15.pdf

I actually heard back from the CQC a week or so ago, after a bit of telephone tag, we finally spoke.

I would like to say that, they seem have an genuine interest in "how they conduct operations" at Liverpool 1 and will be contacting Optical Express following my concerns for a response.

I suggest affected OE patients unhappy with the advice received from their optometrist, in particular those with existing dry eye conditions who were then treated, then DO contact CQC via any of the options below.

The CQC offered these alternative avenues of complaint.

If you are unhappy with the quality of care provided to you then you should contact the service itself in the first instance. The service providing the care should try to sort out your complaint and put things right for you. If you remain unhappy with the outcome you may also be able to refer your complaint to Independent Healthcare Advisory Service (IHAS). IHAS are a membership organisation providing a complaints adjudication service. You can contact IHAS at:

Independent Healthcare Advisory Service
Centre Point
103 New Oxford Street
London
WC1A 1DU

Tel: 0207 379 8598
Fax: 0207 379 8586
Email: info@independenthealthcare.org.uk

You can also find useful information from the Patients Association or Action against Medical Accidents, their contact details are:

The Patients Association
PO Box 935
Harrow
Middlesex
HA1 3YJ

Tel: 0208 423 9111
Fax: 0208 423 9119
Email:helpline@patients-association.com

Action against Medical Accidents
44 High Street
Croydon
Surrey
CR0 1YB

Helpline: 0845 123 23 52

I wish I could get excited but my experience with the CQC has found little more than pen pushers, form filling bureacratic a@@lickers who wouldn't know what to do if they had to deal with a real problem!

Luckily for them most of the problems are swept behind the door in time for their visits which are usually announced in advance to save embarrassment, sometimes in return for cash favours

Do you really think the CQC cares any more about your eyes than they did all those poor patients in Stafford?

Same old mantra, "We will learn from this"

The CQC writes great reports, but no more than that, which is why the industry is laughing :pinch:

Source:
www.cqc.org.uk/search/apachesolr_search/...el1=0&deregistered=0

Optical Express - Milton Keynes Clinic (type of service: Hospital)
13 Silbury Arcade, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, MK9 3AG | (01908) 699854

"We are currently reviewing one or more government standards at this location"

Now what could that be about :blink:

Source:
www.cqc.org.uk/statement/10/296800

Optical Express - Thurrock (Lakeside) Clinic

Unit 16, Lakeside Shopping Centre, West Thurrock, Grays, Essex, RM20 2ZT
(01708) 899890
See on a map

Type of service
Hospital

Specialisms/services
Diagnostic and/or screening services, Caring for adults under 65 yrs, Caring for adults over 65 yrs

Local Authority Area
Thurrock

People should be cared for in safe and accessible surroundings that support their health and welfare (outcome 10)
Improvements required

Our latest report on this standard published on 31 July 2012

We inspected on 13 July 2012 during a routine inspection

We checked that people who use this service:

Are in safe, accessible surroundings that promote their wellbeing.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider and carried out a visit on 13/07/2012.

Our judgement
The provider was not meeting this standard. We judged that this had a minor impact on people using the service and action was needed for this essential standard. People who use the service, staff and visitors were not fully protected against the risks to the security of premises.

What people who use the service experienced and told us

We spoke to people using the services but their feedback did not relate to this standard.

Other evidence
On walking round the clinic we noticed that some doors had combination locks fitted to the doors but they were left unlocked. Some of these were the doors that accessed the laser surgery room, the drugs store and the medical records store. In the laser surgery room, although the laser warning light was on above the door we were able to open the door and see a patient awaiting surgery. Leaving this door unlocked was contrary to the procedures as set out in local rules for the safe operation of lasers, which stated that access to the area should be restricted.

At the back of the clinic, fire doors doubled as the deliveries door, which opened out into the service yard. These were seen to have been wedged open by a member of staff who had gone outside to smoke. These were clear security risks that could have compromised the safety and wellbeing of staff and people who use the service. We immediately raised these issues with the surgery support manager and the nominated individual who said they would address the matter.

We checked the provider’s safety and suitability of premises policy but this did not make reference to security of the premises.