Three quarters of hospitals in England are unsafe.
This is the sum of hospitals rated inadequate or requiring improvements in safety by the Care Quality Commission. It doesn't define all these as unsafe. The inspected hospitals aren't known to be representative of all hospitals in England.
"The damning of NHS hospitals: Devastating report reveals 74% are unsafe"
Daily Mail, 15 October 2015
"3 out of 4 [hospitals] are judged 'unsafe'"
The Sun, 15 October 2015
"We are not saying 74% of hospitals are unsafe"
David Behan, Chief Executive, Care Quality Commission, 15 October 2015
Where the bar for safety is set, it seems, isn't the same for everyone. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) confirmed to us that it doesn't consider three-quarters of hospitals to be "unsafe". It also said its findings aren't representative of all hospitals across England, though this wasn't clear from its report.
There's room for interpretation of what counts as 'unsafe': the figure includes hospitals both deemed inadequate for safety and requiring improvement, as opposed to being 'good' or 'outstanding'.
13% of inspected hospitals inadequate, 61% require improvement
Inspecting just under half of acute hospital trusts in England, it found 13% were deemed "inadequate" for safety and another 61% were rated "requires improvement". So 74% in total, as many reports have focused in on.
There were separate findings for GP and adult social care services.
Those aren't all "unsafe" according to the CQC
We invited the CQC to clarify Mr Behan's comments on the BBC Today Programme this morning. It said:
"Our report does not say is that 74% of hospitals are unsafe. What we say is that we rated 13% of hospitals 'Inadequate' for safety—which means that we demanded that they take urgent action to put things right.
"For the 61% of hospitals that we rated 'Requires Improvement' we are saying that they need to do more develop their approach to safety and to prevent things from going wrong—not waiting until they do go wrong. We are not saying that they are 'failing' on safety, but that there is more they could be doing in this area.
The CQC report itself says an inadequate rating is "a strong indication that care is unsafe, or that the organisation does not have the capacity without support to sort out its problems." Here they're talking about failing to investigate incidents properly or learn from them and issues with the number of staff and the training they get. Meanwhile requiring improvement means lacking the high standard of service expected and often needing improvements to systems and processes.
It's fair to say there's room for interpretation on what counts as 'unsafe'. Some might interpret requiring improvement as basically not safe enough anyway. But the CQC itself doesn't say all these hospitals are "unsafe".
Still not representative of all hospitals
We looked at last year's CQC report and delivered a health warning on the reports, quoting the CQC as saying: "This picture is not representative of acute hospitals across England".
That phrase noticeably isn't in this year's report, but the CQC confirmed to us that the same caveat applies and this year's report isn't representative either. It expects to complete inspections of all acute hospital trusts by the end of March next year, and specialist, mental health, community healthcare and ambulance trusts by the end of next June.
So we'll have a clearer picture next year.
The integrity of our elections is in danger, and we need your help
You’re probably here looking for facts. Thank you for that trust. But with the EU parliament elections on the way and more elections a possibility, we need to act now to make sure our elections are protected, before it’s too late.
Could you help protect our elections by becoming a Full Fact donor?
Misinformation isn’t new, but advancements in technology mean it can spread at an unprecedented scale. Our dangerously outdated election laws have not kept up with the digital age, putting our next elections at risk of abuse.
Currently, it’s possible for a candidate to run a thousand different political ads to win the same seat, promising something different to each group it targets. At the same time, there’s no law requiring those who publish online campaigns to disclose who they are or how they are funded. The opportunity for bad actors to manipulate election results is left wide open.
You may already know about our work to make public debate online more honest and transparent. Every day, we call out the most harmful misinformation on social media platforms when and where we see it. But right now, we’re urging the government to overhaul our election laws to make sure political campaigning is held to the same level of scrutiny online as it is offline.
This work all depends on the generosity of hundreds of people who all believe that for democracy to work, we need transparency. Our monthly donors help strengthen our voice, and show our politicians that this really matters. Would you consider joining them?
Become a donor today to make sure our elections are protected.