CQC publishes independent review into its regulation of Whorlton Hall

Posted January 22, 2020

CQC publishes independent review into its regulation of Whorlton Hall | Care Quality Commission

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has today published the findings of an independent review into how it dealt with concerns raised by Barry Stanley-Wilkinson in relation to the regulation of Whorlton Hall.

CQC commissioned David Noble QSO to undertake the review to focus in particular on concerns raised by Mr Stanley-Wilkinson about the draft report prepared in 2015, and how they were addressed through CQC’s internal processes.

The review finds that the decision not to publish the report of the 2015 inspection of Whorlton Hall prior to the 2016 re-inspection or following CQC’s internal investigation was wrong.

The review makes seven recommendations relating to the security and availability of notes from CQC inspections; information provided to inspectors about services; quality assurance processes; legal policies and processes; the internal whistleblowing process and how CQC investigates complaints from providers.

Ian Trenholm, Chief Executive of CQC, said:

I commissioned this independent review to fully investigate the concerns raised by Mr Stanley-Wilkinson about the draft report prepared in 2015 following an inspection of Whorlton Hall.

David Noble’s review concludes that the decision not to publish the report of the 2015 inspection was the wrong one, which we fully accept.

The review also concludes that although the 2015 inspection did identify concerns about the operation of the hospital at Whorlton Hall, at that time, there was no evidence that patients were being abused.

David Noble has made a number of recommendations to CQC’s Board to improve CQC’s processes and procedures. We welcome Mr Noble’s findings and all his recommendations have been accepted in full by the CQC Board today. Some relate to work which is already underway, however there is still much to be done. We will be publishing an action plan setting out how we are addressing each recommendation at a future public board meeting.

“I am grateful to David Noble for his work on this review and to all of those who have co-operated with him throughout. I am determined that the findings and recommendations of this review, alongside the upcoming review from Professor Glynis Murphy, will be used to help us to improve how we regulate mental health, learning disability and or autism services. We want to get better at spotting poor care and at using the information people share with us and will involve people, families, carers and stakeholder organisations to ensure we get it right.