Weaknesses in the way CQC checks NHS directors

A Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report has outlined significant weaknesses in the way the Care Quality Commission (CQC) used the NHS ‘fit and proper’ person test.

he Ombudsman carried out an independent investigation into a whistle-blower’s complaint about the CQC’s oversight of the appointment of a chief executive to an NHS trust. Despite being criticised by an Employment Tribunal, the Chief Executive was employed by another NHS trust, while the whistle-blower, Clare Sardari, was unable to return to her job as a result of raising the alarm.

The Ombudsman found that, in this case, the CQC’s record-keeping was poor and it did not adequately weigh up the evidence, instead relying on the chief executive’s apology, their references, and a Professional Regulator’s report which did not address the main issue of serious misconduct. It also claims that the CQC lacked rigour in its regulation of the appointment of NHS directors and had failed to take a transparent and proportionate approach.

The Ombudsman recommended that the CQC formally apologises to Ms Sardari and offers £500 to her in recognition of the injustice and distress that their actions have caused her, as well as to review the learning from this case and report back on the improvements made to demonstrate rigour in future FPPR considerations.

Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, said: “This case shows that CQC’s approach to making sure NHS trusts are employing the right people at director-level needs reviewing. The public and NHS staff must have confidence that NHS leaders are fit and proper to do the job and that whistle-blowers will not be penalised for raising concerns. We need fair, transparent and proportionate oversight that stops leaders who have committed serious misconduct from moving around the NHS, and makes them accountable for their actions.”