Summary
This case study highlights the importance of accurate regulatory records and how providers can challenge misleading or incorrect information held by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
This article follows the story of one registered provider who discovered errors in their CQC documentation after submitting a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). With our support, we were able to utilise UK data protection law to secure formal corrections to the record.
Background
We acted for a CQC registered provider who had raised a formal complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in relation to a CQC inspection. The PHSO accepted the complaint for a full investigation and issued what is known as a Provisional Views Report. The provider and the CQC were both invited to comment on the report.
At the same time, the PHSO confirmed that the provider was entitled to request all of the material evidence CQC had supplied to the PSHO. The provider took this opportunity, and the CQC file was disclosed. For the first time, this file shone a light on the inner workings of CQC on this case, and gave the provider an opportunity to see how the inspection had been handled.
What the Records Revealed
The disclosed records included a wide range of errors from the CQC. However, three issues in particular stood out:
The file recorded that the Inspection Manager had stated in a quality assurance meeting that they were “pretty sure” some information submitted by the provider during the factual accuracy process had been created after the inspection. The Inspection Manager went on to say that, although they could not verify this, they were accepting the information.
This was a serious allegation and, crucially, it was not true. Understandably, the owner/manager who supplied the information was not pleased with this statement.
The records also stated there was “a lot of history with the manager”. Again, this was false, as the registration history confirmed.
Finally, there was a statement in the CQC record claiming that the owner/manager had denied the inspectors access to a medical room. In reality, they had not. The medical room was temporarily inaccessible due to refurbishment work. This had been clearly flagged to CQC by the owner/manager before the inspection took place.
Legal Basis for Rectification
We supported the provider in exercising their rights under Article 16 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), and used this to get CQC to rectify these records. Article 16 deals with rectification of records and links directly to Article 5(1)(c) of the UK GDPR, which requires personal data to be accurate.
In this context, the personal data in question related to allegations made about the provider and its manager, recorded in CQC’s documentation.
The Outcome
In relation to the allegations that the owner/manager had fabricated evidence and had a problematic history, CQC agreed to attach the following file note to the record:
“These are opinions that were expressed by a CQC employee at the time, for which we do not have supporting evidence. No inference should be taken from these statements.”
CQC also agreed to place a note on the record in relation to access to the medical room which is as follows:
“The medical room was not accessible due to refurbishment work at the external venue. Inability to access the room was not the fault of the provider or the manager.”
These clarifications were a positive outcome for the provider. They ensured that future references to the inspection would not be affected by inaccurate or unsupported statements.
Why This Matters
This case shows that the UK GDPR can provide a powerful route to rectification, particularly where opinions or allegations have been recorded without evidence.
This same power has been utilised previously to request rectification of records on behalf of individuals in several regulatory and safeguarding cases to good effect.
As Neil Grant puts it: “It is a useful tool to have in one’s armoury.”
This case was shared with the permission of the provider involved. Their anonymity has been preserved in line with our duty of confidentiality.
About the Author
