ESPO Working Group and Forum sessions

Chaired by Lena Weilandt, Sweden

Input from CQC – Chris Day, Director of Communications

Input form Denmark, Socialstyrelsen – Henrik Frostholm

Working Group 3 – Observation

Presentation by the Chair, Carien Geertse (The Netherlands)

Input from David Frances, Wales

Input from CQC- Allison Murray, Head of Inspection in adult social care

Regulation and Inspection of General Practitioners Practices (acceptance and improvement):

Introduction – Michele Golden, Head of General Practice Inspection, CQC, England

Overview of the pioneering work done by CQC in respect of the regulation of general (family) practice in England

Statements:

-We have identified that 75% of practices provide care that is either ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. We have taken enforcement action against providers who have breached regulations.

-We have driven improvement in two main measurable ways: firstly by identifying and highlighting what outstanding practice looks like and secondly by taking enforcement action (where necessary) to force practices to improve the standards of care.

Intervention and discussion lead by Anne Marie Vangsted, director general of Danish Patient Safety Authority, Denmark

Incident handling and transparency in supervisory practice:

Introduction – Ian Leistikow (replacing Ronnie vand Diemen), IGZ, the Netherland

Statements:

–  Public transparency of data from adverse event analysis benefits the learning ability of health & care providers;

–  Health & care providers should be transparent to the public about their own adverse events.

Intervention and discussion lead by Charles Rendell, CQC.

Trust in supervision and methods that contribute to learning and quality improvement:

Introduction – Gunilla Hult Backlund, General Director, IVO, Sweden

Statements:

–  To be able to contribute to quality improvement and learning effectively, there must be a certain level of trust between the supervisory agency and the supervised. The latter must trust that the agency’s primary focus is learning and quality improvement. The supervisory agency must trust that the supervised want to develop and must act in a way that does not create fear.

–  The opposite to trust – mistrust and also fear of making mistakes and the consequences that can follow – is an obstacle for learning and development.

 Intervention and discussion lead by Ian Leistikow, IGZ, Netherlands

Multidisciplinary teams of professionals in supervisory practice:

Introduction – Sabina Wikgren Orstam, IVO, Sweden

Statements: 

–   To truly understand the organization and the value it creates for the individual we need multidisciplinary teams.

–     The creation of multidisciplinary teams make the supervisory work more flexible to changing conditions. 

 Intervention and discussion- Henrik Frostholm, Deputy head of office at the National Board of Social Services, Denmark