1 User communications strategy November 2010 – April 2012

2 User groups Individual members of the general public who use care services regulated by CQC Representative groups of people who use services, their families and carers with statutory powers to hold providers to account: LINks, Overview and Scrutiny Committees and FT boards of governors Voluntary organisations and community groups

3 Individual members of the public

4 What people who use services tell us they want Act swiftly to eliminate poor quality care Open about what we know as quickly as possibleInvolve people who use services and their carers in how we regular Evidence that care actually improves. People are cynical about official statistics and information and they are sceptical about what we can do Publish our judgements clearly and quickly, including information on any improvements required To know what essential standards of quality and safety to expect from providers, updates about how well they’re doing and what action’s being taken when they need to improve Simple, clear information in Plain English People are unused to making a choice about NHS providers, but they welcome it in principle. People rely on our information to help them choose Adult Social Care providers and they like ratings of poor, good and excellent To access CQC information about providers via other websites: voluntary organisations; providers; NHS; Google. Representative groups want advance warning before we carry out a review and before we publish Representative groups want additional information to share with local people People want to be able to provide feedback, and to read other people’s views but are not clear about how to complain Representative groups want us to use their information in our judgments and tell them how we have used it

5 Where we are now We have published a register of NHS and ASC/IH providers on our website and findings published in media Public communications have made a start on raising awareness of essential standards amongst people who use NHS and adult social care users: 200,000 public leaflets distributed but impact is minimal given size of market. Legislative constraints mean we cannot publish our concerns, or findings, until the provider has had 14 days to check the report for factual accuracy. If we propose enforcement action, we cannot publish until at least 28 days and possibly for much longer after the provider has been notified of our decision. Users are unaware that we have concerns and are undertaking a review of compliance until we publish. There is a lengthy delay between the initiation of a review of compliance and completion of a report Management information systems aren’t in place to deliver public reporting on progress in monitoring compliance, thematic reporting on outcomes, regions, service types – manual extraction necessary Content and language of directory pages is restricted by legislative and technical requirements and does not meet user needs. Adult social care and Independent Healthcare register: carries incomplete directory of individual locations registered with incomplete data; generic statement about providers being in process of being registered. Search facility is less friendly than before; quality ratings are frozen; many complaints

6 Where we are now Representative groups of people who use services involved in design of regulatory and user voice methodology Programme of communications to LINks, OSCs and FT Boards of Governors since summer 2009 Exploration of communication needs of diverse community groups Outcome-focused and User voice content in Review of Compliance reports is variable because there is no consistent process for capturing User voice in compliance monitoring Views of people who use services can be submitted via a prototype web form, or telephone but clear tracking, analysis and feedback mechanisms are not in place to assess impact on judgment and reporting back. We proactively ask for user feedback from LINKs, OSCs and FT Boards of Governors but no other groups or public User communications led by 0.75 of a role with no supporting team and delivered via several teams; minimal resource within Involvement for communications. Resource is constrained, targeted communications crude, coordination and consistency a challenge

7 Specific areas for development/ improvement by April 2012

8 Key milestones and deliverables: Overall approach We do not proactively market CQC to the general public – it would be prohibitively costly and insufficiently targeted If users come to us, our information is public-facing and assists choice We have a digital platform from which information can be syndicated. We syndicate to third parties – NHS choices, Age UK, etc and we offer subscribers alerts when our judgements change We focus our communications on representative groups of people who most use services and voluntary and community groups, using a crude segmentation of the market by sector We work with Involvement and Stakeholder teams to prioritize and segment groups best placed to act as channels out, to encourage voice in, and to inform public communications For NHS users, we provide the regulator’s expert independent view of whether local services are meeting essential standards to add to the wealth of information that already exists For IH users, we provide the regulator’s expert independent view of whether local services are meeting essential standards For ASC users, we provide valuable additional information to assist choice by providing a mark of excellence

9 Key milestones and deliverables Key deliverablesMilestones Our information is clear, plain English, up to date, date stamped, and responsive to the results of user testing. Provider Profile is the new register. It assists choice by giving a simple, composite, summary view of a service’s compliance overall and with each standard. Users can access more detailed narrative and download a composite report and a tailored report. ‘What users told us’ is prominent and easily accessible Quality information mark further assists choice for users of ASC services More informative overall statements about provider’s compliance on directory pages (December 2010/January 2011) Website indicates location ‘under review’ (December 2010/January 2011) Digital platform upgraded (March 2011) Provider Profile at location and provider level For users of NHS, ASC and IH services (May 2010) For users of dental and private ambulance services (April 2011) For users of GP services (April 2012) Quality information mark for ASC users October 2011

10 Risks to delivery Reviews of compliance reports are not public facing Systems and processes to deliver the Provider Profile and Management Information are not yet in place and may not be delivered due to competing priorities Until the digital channel is upgraded, public-facing content on our website is compromised There are lengthy delays between carrying out a review and completing a report, which means we are unable to publish our findings Legislative constraints mean that we cannot publish any of our concerns, or our findings, until the factual accuracy check or representations process has concluded