what stage it is made. For example, at page 14, closing the complaint at the investigation stage, there is no specific mention of any duty on the part of the CI to provide written reasons to the provider. In the interests of fairness and transparency and the ability of the provider to consider a possible review of a decision (on the basis that this will now be available to them), we suggest it would be essential that they receive the same information that is being given to the complainant. Some providers who have experience of the investigation of a complaint raised concerns the lack of transparency in terms of how a complaint is investigated. Providers are often given no information about the investigation process. This may be appropriate in a small number of very serious cases, but in general will not be the most helpful dispute resolution approach. It more often than not will serve to exacerbate an atmosphere of secrecy and mistrust and entrench positions that do not serve the outcome of better care. Some providers have experienced the situation where a complaints investigation has become entwined with a service inspection. This raises concerns about impartiality and the ability of a single complaint to overly influence the outcome of an inspection. We would like confirmation from the CI that this is contrary to their policy and suggestions of what to do in the event that this occurs. Providers have identified concerns about the impact of a complaint that appears to continue to colour inspection results for some time, well after the issues raised by the complaint have been addressed by the provider. We would like the CI to consider some transparent and formalised way of drawing a line under complaints. Some of our members have suggested that there could be more learning from the process outcomes, not just in relation to complaints that are upheld, but also those that are not. Providers could benefit from learning how others approach complaints, the investigative processes others use and also learn from the processes the CI use. We would be interested to know how this could be implemented. Technical points: On pages 4 and 21 reference is made to work’. It is not clear whether ‘social this is a reference to work’ as a form of activity or a type of ‘social organisation, but we assume it is to the social work department of a local authority (as this expression is used elsewhere). It would be helpful to clarify this. In Appendix 3 and 4, there are a couple of mistakes: The timeline at the top of Appendix 3 does not match the description of complaints below.
what stage it is made. For example, at page 14, closing the complaint at the investigation stage, there is no specific mention of any duty on the part of the CI to provide written reasons to the provider. In the interests of fairness and transparency and the ability of the provider to consider a possible review of a decision (on the basis that this will now be available to them), we suggest it would be essential that they receive the same information that is being given to the complainant. Some providers who have experience of the investigation of a complaint raised concerns the lack of transparency in terms of how a complaint is investigated. Providers are often given no information about the investigation process. This may be appropriate in a small number of very serious cases, but in general will not be the most helpful dispute resolution approach. It more often than not will serve to exacerbate an atmosphere of secrecy and mistrust and entrench positions that do not serve the outcome of better care. Some providers have experienced the situation where a complaints investigation has become entwined with a service inspection. This raises concerns about impartiality and the ability of a single complaint to overly influence the outcome of an inspection. We would like confirmation from the CI that this is contrary to their policy and suggestions of what to do in the event that this occurs. Providers have identified concerns about the impact of a complaint that appears to continue to colour inspection results for some time, well after the issues raised by the complaint have been addressed by the provider. We would like the CI to consider some transparent and formalised way of drawing a line under complaints. Some of our members have suggested that there could be more learning from the process outcomes, not just in relation to complaints that are upheld, but also those that are not. Providers could benefit from learning how others approach complaints, the investigative processes others use and also learn from the processes the CI use. We would be interested to know how this could be implemented. Technical points: On pages 4 and 21 reference is made to ‘social work’. It is not clear whether this is a reference to ‘social work’ as a form of activity or a type of organisation, but we assume it is to the social work department of a local authority (as this expression is used elsewhere). It would be helpful to clarify this. In Appendix 3 and 4, there are a couple of mistakes: The timeline at the top of Appendix 3 does not match the description of complaints below.
CCPS-response-to-Care-Inspectorate-consultation-on-complaints-about-registered-care-services-procedure.docx