Better Regulation - Consistency
Our plan is to show how we meet the five principles of better regulation. This month we will focus on consistency.
In terms of its definition, consistency means that rules and standards must be joined up and implemented fairly.
In order to be consistent, most key decisions are taken at our Accreditation Coordination Group (ACG), which meets every Wednesday morning.
This is where we consider accreditation submissions, audit reports and provider monitoring reports. Most of the decisions that have to be taken are straight forward. However, there are occasions when we need to draw on case history and remember how we dealt with eg a particular accreditation submission previously. Where we have to make a decision on an accreditation submission which is different or unusual, we record this as a landmark decision. Fortunately, these happen very rarely.
With audit and provider monitoring reports, there are often discussions about the risk rating of an issue. Again, we draw on case history so that if a particular issue was previously rated as medium then it should again be rated as medium. However, context in which the issue was raised is key and this could alter the rating. The officer presenting the report will set out the reasons why they feel the issue should not be medium and their rationale as to whether it should be eg high. ACG members will discuss and come to a considered conclusion.