ALLIANCE response to Independent Review of Inspection, Scrutiny and Regulation

The ALLIANCE has submitted a response to the call for evidence on the Independent Review of Inspection, Scrutiny and Regulation in Scotland.

The ALLIANCE has responded to the call for evidence on the Independent Review of Inspection, Scrutiny and Regulation in Scotland (this link will take you away from our website).

The ALLIANCE welcomes the focus on person centred care and approaches within the Independent Review of Inspection, Scrutiny and Regulation. This review, along with that of the Independent Review of Adult Social Care, the National Care Service, and the Scottish Mental Health Law Review (among others) offers an opportunity to embed citizen involvement, human rights and co-production in re-designing and improving services for people in Scotland.

The ALLIANCE recommends that Scotland’s system of inspection, scrutiny and regulation should include a commitment to co-produce systems with people with lived experience, where people accessing health and social care services are part of planning and decision-making at all levels. Co-production activity should be fully accessible, with appropriate support provided to ensure people can participate in the process. Similarly, strategic evaluation of the process of inspection, scrutiny and regulation should explicitly draw on data collection and intersectional analysis of people’s experiences of health and social care, to ensure evidence-based responses that target groups of people who do not have equitable access to care.

In addition to this action, regulation, inspection and scrutiny should support good practice via the following:

• Providing proper resourcing, training, and support to the workforce to signpost people towards information on complaints, service improvement, co-production work, and the wider processes of inspection, scrutiny, and regulation.
• Provide people with accessible information about services and about the work of inspection, scrutiny, and regulation – both for those accessing services and those who wish to access services but currently have unmet needs.
• Ensure that systems enable constructive feedback loops. Anyone providing information to the regulator should be given an outline of what follow-on communication to expect, and from whom, to ensure feedback loops are in place.
• In instances where services have been suspended, relevant public bodies should take prompt action to ensure that people are provided with alternative care and support as soon as possible, and that their choice and preferences for alternative care and support and respected and properly resourced (with increases to social care budgets in instances with the substitute is more expensive than the suspended service).
• Public transparency of reporting, with the opportunity for members of the public and the workforce to provide additional information to inspectors and/or seek further clarity on the issues at hand.
• Reporting should also reflect contexts where geography or other factors mean that there is a limited pool of providers or relevant services within an area and indicate what it being done to support that disparity – including proactive support and commissioning to meet known service gaps.
• Ensure that systems are in place to obtain regular input from people into their experiences of inspection, scrutiny, and regulation, and aim to adjust and improve systems based on that data.
• Staff are protected from the risk of poor treatment or job loss if they raise concerns about quality of care.
• Staff are respected and valued, and efforts are made to ensure that the system of inspection, scrutiny and regulation acknowledges their work – even when it highlights areas for improvement.
• Ensure that all registration costs, and hidden impacts for the workforce and people accessing care, are considered and mitigated.

You can read our full response via the links below.

End of document.

End of page.