For some of the proposed service users, space and quiet would be paramount to meeting their needs. Our Client had always been clear that it was their intention to provide a service for individuals with very complex needs, some of whom require 1:1 or 2:1 care. Furthermore, that isolation appears to have taken on a Geographical context that does not appear anywhere in the definition.” As used by the CQC in the context of this application it appears to relate to isolation from the community as a whole. “ troubled by this phrase and the context in which it appears in this case. The Tribunal endorsed the use of the phrase “congregate” in the guidance seeks to avoid the isolated institutional type of setting highlighted in the Winterbourne View scandal. The Tribunal went on to consider whether the existence of two homes on the same site would create a ‘congregate setting’. By any reading this cannot amount to a campus setting.” The Tribunal found that: “ Two homes cannot by definition cluster and there are no shared facilities. The Tribunal did not accept the CQC’s argument that the presence of two units on one site in this manner creates a ‘campus’ type environment. The Tribunal were satisfied with our Client’s evidence that Penley Grange and Penley View would be two separate homes run independently of each other with their own ethos and approach to their Clients and their own staff teams. It was further argued that even if it was an independent service, it’s geographic location and proximity to the existing service would make it a congregate or campus setting. Reasons cited included CQC’s contention that our Client was simply seeking to double the size of its existing service rather than provide a truly independent second service. The case involved an application by our Client, an established provider, with a strong track record of providing high quality person-centred care for adults with complex learning disabilities and autism, to add an additional location to its registration to add a 6 bedded unit, Penley View, adjacent to its existing 6 bedded service at Penley Grange.ĬQC had refused the application for registration on the basis that it would not be compliant with the principles of Registering the Right Support. In an important decision for one of our Clients and indeed for the sector, Centurion Health Care Limited v CQC 3264.EA, the Tribunal carefully considered the Care Quality Commission’s interpretation and application of its Registering the Right Support Guidance. This was usually because they did not fit exactly within the preferred model of 6 beds or fewer or because they had an out of town location. This appeared to be a policy position on grounds that they would not comply with Registering the Right Support to the letter. ![]() The experience of many of our provider clients was that, even in the face of compelling evidence that they would promote enablement, independence, choice and inclusion, the underpinning principles of Registering the Right Support, CQC were refusing their applications. My concerns were around the CQC’s apparent failure to properly exercise its discretion when applying the Registering the Right Support guidance to registration applications. In August this year I wrote of my growing concern about the CQC’s rigid approach to registration of services for people with learning disabilities/autism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |