FOI2026/2106

I am writing concerning CQC’s 2026 assessment of urgent and emergency services at Fairfield General Hospital.

CQC found that, during its previous inspection in August 2022, five regulatory breaches had been identified. By the 2026 assessment, significant improvement had still not been made in relation to three of those five breaches, including staffing levels, staff training compliance and timely access to treatment.

CQC recorded that action plans had been developed, but that important actions had not yet been fully implemented or embedded.

It also identified further concerns relating to corridor care, policy compliance, infection prevention and control and sepsis management, and concluded that escalation and challenge did not always translate into timely, sustained change.

I am conducting a national examination of whether repeated CQC findings and agreed corrective actions are translated into timely and sustained improvement.

I therefore ask NHS Greater Manchester ICB to answer the following questions.

1. What recorded assurance did the ICB obtain following CQC’s August 2022 findings that the five regulatory breaches at Fairfield General Hospital were being corrected?
2. Which ICB executive or committee was responsible for reviewing that assurance?
3. What independent evidence, rather than provider self-assurance alone, did the ICB rely upon to establish that corrective action had been effective?
4. Before CQC’s 2026 assessment, did the ICB consider that the previously identified breaches had been adequately addressed? If so, on what evidence?
5. Following CQC’s subsequent finding that significant improvement had still not occurred in three of the five breaches, did the ICB review why its own assurance arrangements had not identified that those deficiencies remained?
6. What action did the ICB take following CQC’s finding that escalation and challenge had not consistently translated into timely and sustained change?
7. What evidence does the ICB now hold that the previously unresolved concerns have actually been corrected and that improvement has been sustained?
8. Where a provider reports an action as complete, what process does the ICB use to distinguish administrative completion of an action plan from evidence that the change is functioning reliably in clinical practice?
9. Has the ICB obtained any independent audit, external assurance or other testing of the corrective actions since CQC’s 2026 assessment?

I would particularly appreciate direct answers to questions 3 to 9 rather than a general description of improvement programmes or partnership working.

The Freedom of Information Act allows Public Authorities to decline to answer FOI requests when we estimate it would cost us more than £450 (equivalent to 18 hours, calculated at £25 per hour) to identify, locate, extract, and then provide the information that has been asked for.

Due to the volume and complexity of the data involved to look retrospectively from 2022 – 2026 that your detailed set of questions cover, it would require a disproportionate amount of time and resources to locate extract and collate the data, and therefore, on this occasion it is with regret NHS GM are not able to process this section of your request further.

On this basis, section 12(1) has been applied, because this would exceed the appropriate limit prescribed in the act.

In accordance with our duty under Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to provide reasonable advice and assistance, if you are able to narrow the scope of your request, we may be able to respond to it within the appropriate cost limit.