The factual accuracy process is optional. If you do not find any factual accuracy errors within the report, you do not need to complete the factual accuracy template or process. Please confirm by email if you do not need to use this process.
To support your decisions when you submit a factual accuracy, our metrics for local authority assessment framework gives details about our data reporting. You can also view our updated approach to assessing local authorities and the purpose and use of rating characteristics.
When you get your draft report and factual accuracy template
After our assessment activity, we will review the evidence we have gathered and draft the assessment report. This will then go through our internal quality assurance process, and you will receive your draft assessment report as an email attachment.
We will send this email to the appropriate person, usually the Director of Adult Social Services (DASS), unless the local authority has explicitly chosen another suitable person to receive the email. It is important that you make sure we have the correct contact details for people who need to receive the draft report when we carry out our assessment.
We will send you a Microsoft Word template for the factual accuracy process at the same time as the draft report. You can provide comments about factual accuracy against each quality statement and subheading.
The draft report is based on evidence we collected during our assessment. If we raised concerns with you during the assessment, or in the draft report, you can also send us information about action you have taken to address these concerns. The assessment team will consider the information you send us and may amend the report to reflect this where it is relevant. However, unless there are exceptional circumstances, this new information will not form part of our decision around final judgements or ratings (where appropriate).
If you need to ask us for information before you can submit factual accuracy comments, your request should be short, specific and should clearly justify why you need the information to raise a point of factual inaccuracy. You should send your request directly to your lead assessment manager, if you are already in contact with them. Otherwise, please use the regional email address quoting your local authority’s name and mark it for the attention of the assessment team.
We will not identify who has shared information with us. This is to protect the confidentiality of people, staff and organisations.
What you can’t use factual accuracy for
The factual accuracy process is not for commenting on methodology, language or data usage.
It should not be used to challenge:
- an assessment rating or score solely because you disagree with it
- how we carried out an assessment –for this, you can complain about CQC.
Deadline for submitting comments
Once you receive our email with your draft report, you will have 10 working days from the date of the email to review the report and submit any comments about factual accuracy.
We will not extend this period unless there are exceptional circumstances. If you are unable to submit your comments before the deadline, you must tell us why immediately in writing. We will use our discretion to decide whether there are exceptional circumstances.
If there are no factual inaccuracies in the draft report, you must still confirm that you have reviewed it within 10 working days of receiving it.
Local authorities are responsible for making sure that the nominated person has checked the factual accuracy of the draft report and that any factual accuracy comments have been approved and submitted.
How we'll respond to comments
After we have considered your points and any supporting information, we’ll decide whether to amend the draft report.
We’ll send you our response to any comments you’ve submitted about factual accuracy and publish the final report.
If we have evidence that supports a point in the draft report, we are entitled to rely on this. If you dispute the point, but you have not provided any evidence in support, we may ask you to provide it.
All factual accuracy responses will be reviewed by a deputy director who is independent of the original assessment.
How to complete the factual accuracy template
The factual accuracy process is a chance to highlight where information is factually incorrect or where our evidence in the report may be incomplete.
There are certain types of suggestions you can make:
- In table A you can identify any typographical, numerical, team or name errors.
- In table B you can identify where information you believe to be factually inaccurate has contributed to a judgement. You will need to provide supporting evidence, which can be referenced within the template. This must relate to the position at the time of the assessment.
- In table C you can identify information that you think we should consider, but you believe was left out. For example, you may have further evidence that would demonstrate outcomes or examples of exemplary practice that show real benefits for people using your service, which may support a different score within that quality statement. Again, this must be relevant to the time of the assessment.
You should complete the template using the following guidance:
- Include the page number and select the quality statement and subsection where prompted.
- Include a clear reference to the factual accuracy comment to allow us to identify it. It is useful to use the exact wording in the report so that it can be identified using the ‘find’ function.
- Include a summary of why the comment is factually inaccurate and cross reference it to clearly labelled evidence submitted (via the portal) to substantiate it. Please do not use the template to copy and paste evidence into the columns or input lengthy responses – these should be submitted separately.
Examples for how to use the template
These examples show appropriate and inappropriate entries for tables A, B and C.
Table A: (review of typographical, numerical, and naming errors)
Numerical error
Issue
Paragraph 3 states “20% of xxxx”, but this should be 2%, not 20%.
Is this appropriate to amend?
Yes. If 2% is the accurate figure (to be verified), this would be a numerical error.
Typographical error
Issue
Paragraph 6 states “They local authority told us”, but this should read “The local authority told us”.
Is this appropriate to amend?
Yes. This is a typographical error.
Team name error
Issue
The text refers to the “First Contact Team”, but the correct team’s name is “Contact Centre Team”.
Is this appropriate to amend?
Yes. This is a team/role name error.
Request for clarification
Issue
Paragraph 1 refers to “leaders” in two places, and clarification has been requested regarding which leaders are meant.
Is this appropriate to amend?
No. This is not a typographical, numerical, or naming error. Additionally, individuals are not identified in reports.
Suggested wording change
Issue
Paragraph 4 states that there was “no guidance” to support people in using browser translation functions. A request has been made to change this to “limited guidance”.
Is this appropriate to amend?
No. This is not a typographical, numerical, or naming error. If evidence exists to support this change, it should be included in Table B under “accuracy of evidence”.
Table B examples: (accuracy of evidence)
Quality statement - Safeguarding
Issue
The report states: “They received a 6‑monthly performance report on safeguarding, assessment and risk”, however, these reports are actually produced monthly.
Is this appropriate to amend?
Yes. This is a factual inaccuracy and can be corrected.
Quality Statement – Safe Systems
Issue
The second paragraph refers to a lack of formal escalation mechanisms in discharge referral situations. However, there are daily system calls, documented pathways for escalation, and on-call systems – please see evidence submission reference xx for further information and evidence.
Is this appropriate to amend?
Yes. This is a factual inaccuracy within the report and can be amended with appropriate evidence submission.
Quality Statement - Partnerships
Issue
There are areas in partnerships that relate to good working practices and evidence of good partnership working. We believe this should be reviewed with a view to change the score to a 3.
Is this appropriate to amend?
No. This point does not relate to factual inaccuracy, it is a comment relating to the score/methodology. Please refer to useful links above for further information on how we score and the methodology.
Quality Statement - Leadership
Issue
There is no recognition that our local authority has a more advanced data system and data dashboards than other local authorities in the areas, we are more advanced than others.
Is this appropriate to amend?
No. This point does not relate to factual inaccuracy, it is a comment relating to other local authorities in comparison. Please refer to useful links above for further information on how we score, data reporting and the methodology.
Quality Statement - Healthier Lives
Issue
You have included data for the ASCOF measures of xxx but not xxx, we submit that is it disproportionate and against the principles of procedural fairness or reasonableness to place so little emphasis on other nationally recognised performance measures.
Is this appropriate to amend?
No. This point does not relate to factual inaccuracy, it is a comment relating to the methodology and data reporting. Please refer to useful links above for further information on how we score, data reporting and the methodology.
Quality Statement - Safeguarding
Issue
The report states “people told us they found it difficult to access support with safeguarding and the online system was difficult to navigate”. However, there is an online system and phone line available for everyone to access safeguarding.
Is this appropriate to amend?
No. This point is not a factual inaccuracy. People’s experiences are central to the assessment process and experiences will be reported. Please refer to useful links above for further information on methodology.
Table C examples: (additional/amended information)
Quality Statement - Partnerships
Issue
You have made no reference in the report to our joint working with xxx which forms part of an alliance to reduce hospital admissions. This partnership has had a marked impact for people enabling them to stay at home with evidenced impact. Please see evidence submission reference xx for further information and evidence towards effective partnership working and its impact.
Is this appropriate to amend?
Yes. This is making reference to a potential omission that could impact the score of this quality statement. Evidence submitted would be reviewed and considered as to whether it would change the report/score.
Quality Statement – Healthier Lives
Issue
The report states that there was limited evidence for impact regarding the early intervention and prevention service. However, please find attached evidence to show the substantial impact the service has had in the last 12 months.
Is this appropriate to amend?
Yes. This is providing further evidence of impact that was not previously considered. Evidence submitted would be reviewed and considered as to whether it would change the report/score.
Quality Statement - Safeguarding
Issue
The reports states that there was no safeguarding guidance for staff. However, these have now been implemented. Please see evidence submission reference xx for evidence.
Is this appropriate to amend?
Partially. The report and scores will be based at the time of the assessment. However, this information may be reflected in the report as being implemented since the assessment but would not impact on the scoring.
Quality Statement - Leadership
Issue
The report states that the local authority did not quality assure or have oversight of the impact the commissioned carers service was having. However, the carers service undertook their own quality assurance and managed their own KPI’s. Please see submission evidence xx for evidence the carers service was doing this.
Is this appropriate to amend?
No. The point in the report relates to the local authority having oversight and undertaking quality assurance for their commissioned carers service. The evidence provided is from that commissioned service and does not indicate how this was integrated into local authority oversight, quality assurance, and performance management. It therefore would not be a valid addition to the evidence.