Keystone Law successfully advises healthcare client in preventing publication of a reputation-damaging CQC inspection report

Keystone Law’s Healthcare Regulatory partner Anne Marie Rugeris has advised a healthcare client in successfully preventing the publication of a reputation-damaging Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection report, in circumstances where both the report and inspection process were irretrievably tainted by bias on the part of the Lead CQC Inspector. The client also received a written apology from the CQC, acknowledging that its original inspection report was “fundamentally flawed”.

The client’s concerns about the CQC Lead Inspector and process were serious and wide-ranging. They included:

• Overt hostility and derogatory comments from the Lead CQC Inspector from the outset of the inspection
• A refusal to view and take into account complete patient records and other documentary evidence available on the day of the inspection
• A finding of Requires Improvement in the Safe domain despite additional evidence of good (and safe) practice being available on the day of the inspection
• Failures in the Factual Accuracy process to take account of information that was available on the day of the inspection
• A flawed Factual Accuracy process being conducted by the biased Lead Inspector.

Having exhausted all options for an amicable resolution with the CQC, the Keystone team commenced the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review and issued correspondence seeking to (i) prevent publication of the flawed CQC inspection report, and (ii) compel the CQC to investigate the client’s significant concerns about the CQC’s inspection and Factual Accuracy processes.

Many will recall last year’s case of R (Cygnet Health Care Ltd) v CQC [2025] EWHC 1 (Admin) as another example of a Judicial Review against the CQC, in which the Administrative Court ultimately allowed Cygnet Health Care’s challenge, finding that the CQC Inspector in that matter was biased to the extent that both the CQC’s inspection report and enforcement action had been tainted by bias. Despite such serious and recent judicial criticism, some health and social care providers are still experiencing inappropriate hostility and difficulties at the hands of CQC inspectors.

Anne Marie Rugeris said:

“Whilst every case turns on its own facts, this outcome reinforces an important principle: where there is credible evidence that an inspection process has been materially affected by bias or procedural unfairness, providers should not assume that publication of an adverse CQC report is inevitable”.

“At a time of change for the CQC, not only in the form of the new Inspection Framework and implementation of its 2026 Improvement Plan, but also in the NHS Modernisation Bill, which seeks to extend the CQC’s powers and the time limits in which it can initiate proceedings, it will be interesting to see how the CQC rises to the inevitable challenges it will face. We hope that positive change is on the horizon.”