Delays in publishing CQC reports have a significant impact on practices. That’s why interim reporting measures are needed, says former practice manager and primary care consultant Daniel Vincent  

In April 2025, only 32 CQC inspection reports were published for general practices across England.

Behind that small number lies a more worrying trend. When we looked at the time between inspection and publication, we found delays that far exceed what is reasonable. The average delay was 149 days; the longest stretched to 433 days – over a year. Even the shortest report took more than a month to appear.

To their credit, the CQC has acknowledged that a technical issue is affecting the production of reports. But for practices, patients, and systems trying to work in real time, the impact of these delays is becoming increasingly hard to ignore.

Yes, practices typically receive informal feedback shortly after the inspection. In many cases, they know their indicative rating and can start working on improvements straight away.

But the rest of the world – patients, partners, and even regulators – remains in the dark. A practice might be months into an improvement plan, but when the report is finally published, it lands as if it reflects the present. And it doesn’t.

That mismatch matters. It affects how practices are perceived, how teams feel about their efforts, and how the wider system learns from regulatory activity. A report that’s months out of date doesn’t just tell an old story – it risks telling the wrong one.

So, while we can accept that delays happen, we should also expect interim solutions. CQC may have been transparent about the problem, but transparency alone isn’t enough. We need interim reporting measures that bridge the gap.

That could be as simple as publishing the inspection date alongside a brief verified summary of initial findings while the full report is finalised. Even a short provisional statement would be better than silence, particularly when practices are being judged,  formally or informally, in the meantime.

Currently, the onus is on practices to keep everyone updated. We tell our teams what’s coming, reassure our patients, and explain to ICBs that we’ve taken action. But we do so without any public documentation to back it up.

The balance needs to shift. Practices should continue to act on their inspection feedback immediately, but the CQC must support that work with timely, visible reporting – however provisional.

This is not about blame. It’s about restoring the usefulness and fairness of the inspection process. Because if we want regulation to drive improvement, it must move at a speed that allows the system to respond.

Right now, it doesn’t. But it could.

Daniel Vincent is CEO of Enhanced Primary Care.