| Display title | CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17 - amendment list' (13/11/18) |
| Default sort key | CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17 - amendment list' (13/11/18) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,983 |
| Page ID | 9718 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 15:05, 18 November 2018 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 15:16, 20 March 2023 |
| Total number of edits | 3 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | There is a newer version of the document: CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17 - amendment list' (31/12/18). The CQC published the following text alongside a full list of corrections to their 2016/17 report: "We are currently amending this document after our analysts found that we had displayed some data gathered by Mental Health Act reviewers on their visits in an inaccurate way. We will publish the updated report in November 2018. An explanation for the amendments: (1) Up until 2015-16, we used ‘Yes/No’ to document whether providers could show evidence of patient involvement in care planning. (2) In 2015-16, we added an option for Mental Health Act reviewers to document this as ‘Requires improvement’. This gave reviewers the option of documenting that the provider had shown some evidence of recording patient information, but it still required improvement. (3) When working on the 2016/17 report, our analysts found that reviewers had been inconsistent in how they had documented this information. Some reviewers had recorded patient involvement just as ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, while others had recorded as ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Requires Improvement’. (4) In preparing the report, we sought to present the information in the ‘Yes/No’ style to show a trend from past results. However, in doing so we combined the responses of ‘requires improvement’ with the ‘No’ responses, which was inaccurate. As a result, we have amended the report." |