Our Workforce Disability Equality Standard (WDES): Annual Report 2021

Contents

• Introduction
• Our Commitment
• The WDES Project Group and Priority Areas for 2022
• Executive Summary
• Collecting Equality Monitoring Data
• Metric 1
• Metric 2
• Metric 3
• Metric 4a
• Metric 4b
• Metric 5
• Metric 6
• Metric 7
• Metric 8
• Metric 9a
• Metric 9b
• Metric 10
• Appendix

---

Introduction

We are taking part in the Workforce Disability Equality Standard (WDES) for the second time this year. We will be open and transparent and show our commitment to providing a fair and inclusive environment for our disabled colleagues.

The Workforce Disability Equality Standard (WDES) report was introduced for NHS Trusts in 2019. The WDES is a set of 10 specific measures (metrics) that enables organisations to compare experiences of disabled and non-disabled staff, to reduce gaps and make improvements. The WDES’ 10 metrics cover workforce diversity (including Board members), recruitment, entry into the formal capability process, and people survey questions.

NHSE/I publish two WDES reports annually, one that compares NHS Trusts and one that compares Arm Length Bodies (ALBs). The WDES 2020 data report for NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts was published October 2021. We received the WDES 2020 data report for ALBs October 2021. Nine organisations submitted WDES data for this report, including CQC, NHS Blood and Transplant, NHS Digital, NHS England and NHS Improvement, etc. We are awaiting publication of the 2020 ALB report; however, there have been delays in the reporting and publication due to COVID-19.

---

Our Commitment

We are committed to the annual WDES reporting and action plans to address inequalities and improve disabled colleagues’ experiences at CQC, which is embedded and set out within our three-year Diversity and Inclusion Strategy – “Our Inclusive Future”. The D&I Strategy itself supports the “Inclusion pillar” within our overarching People Plan, to make sure our workforce represents the public we work hard to protect, and our people feel able to be their best at work.

---

The WDES Project Group and Priority Areas for 2022

The WDES action plan is published alongside the report and is driven by the WDES Project Group, who meet every two months. The WDES Project Group is chaired by Mark Sutton and includes members of HR, Academy, Engagement, Disability Equality Network Chairs, Health & Safety, Digital and Organisational Development.

This year the WDES Project Group have decided to prioritise four areas based on what the data is telling us:

1. Metric 4 – Reducing the likelihood of disabled colleagues experiencing bullying and harassment in the CQC (including a focus on increasing the reporting of these experiences)
2. Metric 5 – Improving disabled colleagues’ belief that CQC provides equal opportunity for career progression
3. Metric 8 – Improving disabled colleagues’ opinion that CQC has made appropriate reasonable adjustment(s) to enable them to carry out their work
4. Raise awareness and address accessibility barriers disabled colleagues may face at work

---

Executive Summary

Our high-level data shows:

• The number of disabled colleagues in the organisation has increased.
• Disabled colleagues are proportionately represented across most levels, except the most senior levels (executive grades). There is no representation of disabled people at Board level.
• Improvement is seen in around half of the people survey metrics, including a large increase in people believing their reasonable adjustments have been met, and a reduction in disabled colleagues feeling pressured to work despite not feeling well.
• The figure for disabled candidates’ likelihood of being appointed from shortlisting compared to non-disabled candidates has also improved. As a result the difference in relative likelihood of being shortlisted is no longer statistically significant between the two groups.
• A reduction in disabled colleagues experiencing bullying and harassment, although the figure is still higher than for non-disabled colleagues (albeit far less commonly than disabled staff in NHS Trusts). The reporting of bullying and harassment continues to decline for both disabled and non-disabled colleagues.
• A reduction is also seen in disabled colleagues believing that there is equal opportunity for career progression and promotion.

---

Collecting Equality Monitoring Data

We are committed to promoting fairness and equality of opportunity for all our colleagues. To support us to do this we need to have insight into who our colleagues are, where they are employed within the organisation and what their experiences are working for us. It is also important that CQC’s people reflect the communities we serve in our regulatory duties.

3,173 people were employed in the organisation as of 31 March 2021. The numbers self-reporting their disability using our Electronic Staff Record (ESR) are as follows:

• Proportion of staff who have self-reported that they are disabled or have a long-term illness employed in the organisation as of 31 March 2021: 8.4% (263)
• The proportion of total staff who have self-reported whether they have a disability or not: 94.4% (2,992)

There are variations in the number of colleagues who self-report their disability status within the electronic staff record (ESR) and those who self-report a disability in our quarterly Pulse Surveys. The average number of disabled respondents across the last 4 pulse surveys is 501 (21%) out of an average of 2,357 total respondents. This can affect the WDES metrics as we are drawing data from different population groups.

We have set ourselves a target of 95% for total staff who have self-reported their disability status on ESR. We continue to have high self-reporting numbers; however, we need to continue upholding a culture where people feel safe to report and part of our overall action to address inequalities is to understand more about the barriers to self-reporting and how to encourage more positive declarations within ESR. We continue to work closely with the organisation’s Disability Equality Network (DEN), Trade Union partners and Staff Forum representatives to monitor this data and develop a joint approach in reiterating the importance of holding accurate workforce data, explaining how this enables us to ensure we employ diverse teams at all levels and provide equality of access to employment and career opportunities.

Data comparisons to the 2020 WDES NHS Trusts report and the 2020 ALB report:

• Our current percentage of colleagues who have self-reported they are disabled on ESR (8.4%) is greater than the 3.5% of staff working for NHS Trusts who have self-reported having a disability on ESR, and the 4.7% of staff who have self-reported a disability in other ALBs. Our current percentage of 5.6% of those who have “not stated” on ESR is far less than NHS’s figure of 23.3% who have not declared having a disability or not, and less than the national healthcare organisations’ figure of 31.5%. This is promising to know that staff at CQC feel more comfortable to self-report having a disability or not compared to staff in NHS trusts and other ALBs.

Some of the actions we are taking

• We will continue to promote the importance of self-reporting disability on ESR to improve the figure of self-reporting disability to our target of 95% (currently 94.4%). We will do this through campaigns, articles, direct emails and videos promoted to all colleagues throughout the year to highlight the importance of having accurate ESR data.
• We will focus promotion of the importance of self-reporting disability for those at Executive grades where there is a higher proportion of “not stated” (7.5%). We will reiterate the importance of this at Senior Leadership Team meetings and People Leads meetings.
• We will work with the Disability Equality Network (DEN) to understand the barriers for people self-reporting on ESR, compared to the higher number of self-reporting in our People Surveys (the figure for disabled colleagues is closer to 21%). We will work with the HR Systems & Workplace Data team to send out a direct email to employees to self-report if they have not already done so, and also consider how we can best capture certain disabilities like neurodiversity (which is not an option in ESR). For upcoming People Surveys, we will include sub-categories for disabilities, in order for us to capture this data more accurately if ESR cannot.

---

Metric 1

Metric 1 requires that we report the percentage of disabled staff in each of the Agenda for Change (AfC) Bands and Very Senior Managers (VSM) which include executive Board members, compared with the percentage of staff in the overall workforce.

CQC has its own pay and grading framework which is not always directly comparable with the Agenda for Change (AfC) bands. However, for the purpose of comparison, broad equivalents between the two are provided in the table below (see Appendix 1).

Pay bands and staff as of March 2021

Category	Percentage of disabled staff	Percentage change in the number of disabled staff since 2020	Percentage of non-disabled staff	Percentage change in the number of disabled staff since 2020	Percentage of staff who have not stated whether they have a disability or not	Percentage change in the number of staff who have not stated whether they have a disability or not since 2020
Cluster 4 (Executive Grades)	3.0%	-0.1	89.6%	+1.3	7.5%	-1.1
Cluster 3 (Grades A,B)	8.8%	+0.1	86.3%	+0.8	4.9%	-1.5
Cluster 2 (Grades C,D,E)	8.2%	+1.8	85.2%	-2.0	6.6%	+0.2
Cluster 1 (Grade F)	8.0%	-1.5	84.1%	+3.0	8.0%	-1.5
Overall Total	8.4%	+0.7	86.1%	+0.4	5.6%	-1.2

What our data is telling us:

• Overall disabled representation has increased by 0.7 percentage point to 8.4%. This percentage is significantly lower than the economic percentage of disabled people employed in the UK (out of total workforce), which is 15%. (Office for National Statistics: Labour Market Status of Disabled People). However as referenced before, the employed number of disabled colleagues at CQC may be far more than 8.4% due to the higher percentage of disabled respondence for people survey results.
• Disabled colleagues are proportionately represented at the Grade Clusters 3, 2, and 1, compared to our organisational average figure (8.4%). However, disabled colleagues continue to be underrepresented in our Exec grades, where there is also a higher number of “Not Stated” self-reporting of disability. Cluster 2 (Grade C, D, and E) saw an increase in representation, whilst the previously above-average represented Cluster 1 (Grade F) saw a decrease, bringing the figure in line with the organisational average.

Data comparisons to the 2020 WDES NHS Trusts report:

• Our percentage of 3% of executive grade colleagues who self-reported a disability is similar to the NHS Trust’s figure where 2.8% of Very Senior Managers have self-reported a disability.

Some of the actions we are taking:

• We will build our brand as a great place to work for disabled colleagues by advertising Executive and Grade A job roles on both Vercida and DiversityJobs.com. We are now advertising roles on these sites, and we hope that this will draw in a wider pool of disabled candidates applying for our Grade A and Executive roles. This year we will review how effective these diversity job websites have been to attract diverse talent for Grade A and Executive advertised roles.
• We will run a Reverse Mentoring programme again in 2022 to include both disabled colleagues and colleagues from ethnic minority groups, with more of a focus on intersectionality. This will create better connections between grades, enhance the visibility of career pathways for disabled colleagues and provide leaders with broader insight into their impact and the experience of other colleagues.
• We will work with Senior Leadership Team to promote more mentoring opportunities and understand the importance of mentoring a diverse group of people, including disabled colleagues.

---

Metric 2

Metric 2 requires that we calculate the relative likelihood of non-disabled staff compared to disabled staff being appointed from shortlisting across all posts.

Table showing numbers of disabled and non-disabled people being shortlisted and appointed

Category	Non-Disabled	Disabled
Number shortlisted	1561	203
Number appointed	451	49
Relative likelihood of shortlisting/appointment	0.289	0.241

Relative likelihood of non-disabled staff compared to disabled staff being appointed from shortlisting across all posts: 1.197

What our data is telling us:

• The figure for disabled candidates’ likelihood of being appointed from shortlisting compared to non-disabled candidates has improved since 2020 report (1.377).
• The difference in relative likelihood of being shortlisted is within the ‘non-adverse’ range (the non-adverse range is between 0.80-1.25, meaning any figure outside of this is significant).

Data comparisons to the 2020 WDES NHS Trusts report and the 2020 ALB report:

• Our figure of 1.197 of the relative likelihood of non-disabled staff being shortlisted compared to disabled staff is not statistically significant, and is very similar to NHS Trusts’ figure of 1.20.
• The overall ALBs’ figure (including CQC) of 1.28 (which is statistically significant). All nine ALBs (including CQC) have a guaranteed interview scheme for disabled candidates, unlike NHS Trusts where a minority have such a scheme available.

Some of the actions we are taking:

• We will obtain Disability Confident Level 2 from the UK Government’s Disability Confident employer scheme. Studies show that NHS Trusts who have obtained Level 2 and 3 accreditations, have a more positive likelihood of shortlisting disabled candidates of 1.10. Once we have obtained Disability Confident Level 2, we will also apply for Disability Confident Level 3, in order for us to benchmark and improve our talent and recruitment practices to align to the UK Government’s best practice for hiring disabled colleagues (and other areas of the employee’s lifecycle).
• We will evaluate our introduction of Independent Panel Members (IPMs), which currently are used for all recruitment panels hiring for Grade A, Executives and Expression of Interest (EOI) campaigns, to ensure the effectiveness of the intervention.
• We will soon begin implementing IPMs in the shortlisting process of all recruitment panels at Grade A and above (pending our evaluation outcomes). This will help mitigate biases and hopefully increase the amount of disabled colleagues being shortlisted to attend an interview.
• We will investigate and work to mitigate accessibility barriers stopping external and internal candidates from applying for jobs/promotion at the CQC (for example our internal recruitment site).
• We will develop a best practice guide on adjustments for interviews to enable disabled candidates to feel more confident in their interviews which will hopefully lead them to score higher.
• We will create an Inclusive Recruitment Toolkit, to help hiring managers understand biases and ways to support interviewing candidates who have neurodiversity or are deaf, etc. This will be designed by Disability and Race Equality Network members.
• We will continue to monitor adverse impact for disabled and ethnic minority applicants, which we have built into our process for all recruitment campaigns. This involves a review of the diversity of the applicant pool at the shortlisting stage and where any adverse impact is seen we will ask hiring managers for a further review of those not shortlisted. We are also monitoring the diversity of initial applications and offers to ensure we are representative of the working population and again to identify any adverse impact within the process.

---

Metric 3

Metric 3 requires that we calculate the relative likelihood of disabled staff compared to non-disabled staff entering the formal capability process, as measured by entry into the formal capability procedure.

It is important to note that this figure excludes people who enter the process on the grounds of ill-health (it is only those who enter a formal capability process on the grounds of performance).

	Non-Disabled 2020/2021	Disabled 2020/2021	Non-Disabled 2019/20	Disabled 2019/20
Number of staff in workforce	2736	252.5	2806.5	241
Number of staff entering the formal capability process	7	1	8.5	0.5
Likelihood entering the formal capability process	0.0026	0.0038	0.0030	0.0021

Relative likelihood of disabled staff entering process compared to non-disabled staff:

• 2020/21: 1.486
• 2019/20: 0.692

Data source: CQC HR data. Data is based on a two-year rolling average of the current year (1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021) and the previous year (1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020).

What our data is telling us:

• The overall relative likelihood figure has increased but this is mainly due to the very low number of cases reported here.

Data comparisons to the 2020 WDES NHS Trusts report:

• Our figure of 1.486 (taken over a two-year period) of the likelihood of disabled staff entering the formal process is slightly lower than the NHS Trusts’ figure of 1.54.

Some of the actions we are taking:

• We will work with the Disability Equality Network to identify any prevalent issues, however due to the low figures (and confidence in our high disability self-reported rates), limited intervention is needed.
• We will continue to use Equality Impact Assessments (EIA) as part of all people management policy reviews which requires the Diversity and Inclusion Manager to sign off at each review.

---

Metric 4a

Metric 4a concerns the percentage of disabled staff compared to non-disabled staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse, in the last 12 months, from:

• Patients, relatives or the public
• Managers
• Other colleagues

This metric is covered by two separate questions asked in our survey, and we combine ‘managers’ and ‘other colleagues’.

This data is taken from our March 2021 Pulse Survey.

CQC Question Text – March 2021 Pulse Survey	Disabled	Disabled vs 2020’s report	Non-disabled	Non-disabled vs 2020’s report	Difference between disabled % and non-disabled %)
In the last 12 months, I have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work from people other than CQC staff (e.g. members of the public and service users)	11.5%	-3.3	7.1%	-1.8	4.4%

The data used for 2020’s report comes from our November 2019 People Survey.

CQC Question Text – March 2021 Pulse Survey	Disabled	Disabled vs 2020’s report	Non-disabled	Non-disabled vs 2020’s report	Difference between disabled % and non-disabled %)
In the last 12 months, I have experienced bullying, harassment or abuse from other CQC staff	16.9%	-3.1	6.7%	-1.9	10.2%

The data used for 2020’s report comes from our November 2019 People Survey.

What our data is telling us:

• Disabled respondents, compared to non-disabled respondents, are more likely to experience unacceptable behaviour from others external to CQC, as well as CQC colleagues.
• However, all figures have improved since the 2020 report (November 2019 survey).

Data comparisons to the 2020 WDES NHS Trusts report:

• The percentage of disabled staff experiencing bullying, harassment or abuse from external people (11.5%), is less than the NHS Trusts figure of 34.2%. The percentage of disabled staff experiencing bullying, harassment or abuse from colleagues (16.9%), is less than the NHS Trusts figure of 22.4%.
• For the NHS Trust’s report, there is a gap of 6.8% between disabled and non-disabled staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from people other than colleagues. This gap is wider than our 4.4% gap at CQC.
• For the NHS Trust’s report, there is a gap of 8.4% between disabled and non-disabled staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from colleagues (managers and colleagues). This gap is less than our 10.2% gap at CQC.

Some of the actions we are taking:

• We will continue to work with all the Equality Networks to introduce into the organisation a campaign that reinforces and promotes CQC’s zero tolerance of bullying and harassment, to make sure that CQC is a place where people feel encouraged and able to report bullying and harassment.
• We will make the new Anti-bias and fairness e-learning training module mandatory for all colleagues to complete from April 2022. This programme has been created alongside our DEN Chair and includes a personal story of his growing up experiencing bias due to being deaf. Once the module has been completed, it takes the user to their “My Performance” page and makes people view the Diversity & Inclusion Success Profiles to choose as one of their Success Profile behaviours going forward. We hope the training and direct link to colleagues’ Success Profiles will make colleagues think about their biases towards disabled colleagues and choose a Success Profile to exemplify going forward.
• We will continue to highlight our disabled colleagues’ lived experiences at our All Colleague Conference, Disability History Month events and on our CEO’s All Colleague Calls.
• We will create a new product on bullying and harassment which will be aimed at team managers and adapted to CQC. This will be added to line manager learning playlists, alongside videos of best practice on how line managers can support disabled colleagues.
• We will continue to monitor our People Survey results for trends and to better understand the impact of our interventions. Early findings from our November/December People Survey tell us the figures for disabled respondents and non-disabled respondents experiencing bullying and harassment from people outside CQC remains around the same and has slightly decreased for those experiencing it from and fellow colleagues.

---

Metric 4b

Metric 4b concerns the percentage of disabled staff compared to non-disabled staff saying that the last time they experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work, they or a colleague reported it:

This metric is covered by 2 separate questions asked in our survey.

CQC Question Text – March 2021 Pulse Survey	Disabled	vs 2020’s report	Non-Disabled	vs 2020’s report
Have you reported the bullying/harassment? [In response to "In the last 12 months, I have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work from people other than CQC staff (e.g. members of the public and service users)"]	50.9%	-4.8	49.6%	-11.9

The data used for 2020’s report comes from our November 2019 People Survey.

CQC Question Text – March 2021 Pulse Survey	Disabled	vs 2020’s report	Non-Disabled	vs 2020’s report
Have you reported the bullying/harassment? [In response to "In the last 12 months, I have experienced bullying, harassment or abuse from other CQC staff"]	40.5%	-3.1	39.8%	-3.6

The data used for 2020’s report comes from our November 2019 People Survey.

What our data is telling us:

• There is little difference between disabled and non-disabled respondents in the reporting of unacceptable behaviour received from others external to CQC, as well as received from other CQC colleagues.
• All figures have declined since 2020 reports (November 2019 survey).

Data comparisons to the 2020 WDES NHS Trusts report:

• Whereas our overall reported level has declined, the reported levels for NHS staff have remained consistent over the last five years (true for both disabled and non-disabled staff) at 49.7% vs 48.5% (however, this figure is a combination of both the questions we ask, therefore we cannot compare the reporting percentage with ours).

Some of the actions we are taking:

• We will continue to work with DEN Chairs to understand whether there are trends and patterns happening in directorates or if a certain group of disabled colleagues feel bullied and harassed. We will also explore and review the most recent People Survey results for additional data and comments regarding the type and origination of bullying and harassment reported. Early findings from our November/December People Survey shows reporting of bullying and harassment has increased for both disabled and non-disabled respondents when the bullying and harassment is from people other than CQC staff. However early findings also show that there has been a decrease in both disabled and non-disabled respondents reporting bullying and harassment from other colleagues.
• We will build a stronger relationship with the Disability Equality Network (DEN) and Freedom To Speak Up (FTSU) Guardians and Ambassadors, in order for DEN members and disabled colleagues to understand and be encouraged to raise bullying and harassment they may be experiencing and know the support that will be in place from the FTSU. We will run a joint network event for February 2022 Stand Up to Bullying Day chaired by a FTSU Ambassador and panel members being Network chairs.

---

Metric 5

Metric 5 concerns the percentage of disabled staff compared to non-disabled staff believing that the Trust provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion.

The wording of our survey question is slightly different.

CQC Question Text – March 2021 Pulse Survey	Disabled	Disabled vs 2020’s report	Non-disabled	Non-disabled vs 2020’s report	Difference between disabled % and non-disabled %)
I believe that CQC provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion.	37.4%	-2.6	53.2%	+1.1	15.8%

The data used for 2020’s report comes from our November 2019 People Survey.

What our data is telling us:

• Disabled respondents are less likely to believe that CQC provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion than non-disabled respondents.
• The figure has declined since the 2020 report (November 2019 survey) whereas the equivalent figure for non-disabled respondents has increased.

Data comparisons to the 2020 WDES NHS Trusts report and the 2020 ALB report:

• Within the NHS report, 78.2% of disabled staff believed their trust provided equal opportunities for career progression or promotion, compared to 85.2% of non-disabled staff.
• CQC’s figures also score lower than other ALBs where across four ALBs (including CQC), 46.9% of disabled staff believe there are equal opportunities for progression (8.6 percentage points lower than non-disabled staff). However only 67% of the ALB (including CQC) included in the ALB report have introduced career development opportunities targeted specifically at disabled staff, something CQC has implemented previously with Disability Rights UK apprenticeships.

Some of the actions we are taking:

• We will actively promote upcoming Shaping Our Future Leaders Programmes and apprenticeship programmes with the Equality Networks. For these programmes we also hold a percentage of places for applicants who are disabled and/or from ethnic minority groups.
• We will introduce the “Inclusive Leadership Pathway” (ILP) this year. The ILP is a leadership development program for disabled and/or colleagues from ethnic minority groups. The ILP designed by Academy, Disability Equality Network and Race Equality Network Chairs. It includes stretch projects, funded learning, and coaches. We have identified disabled coaches from our trained coaches pool at CQC, who will pair up with disabled colleagues on the program. Thus, the colleagues will receive expert coaching from coaches who can relate to them the most. The ILP will build confidence in these colleagues and prepare them to apply and progress into leadership roles.
• We will examine whether there is a noticeable gap between disabled candidates filling out “register an interest” forms (created by the Talent team) for our previous upcoming apprenticeships, and whether they applied for the opportunity in the end and review potential barriers for disabled candidates applying. We will also be using “register an interest” forms before we advertise any other upcoming programmes and apprenticeships.

---

Metric 6

Metric 6 concerns the percentage of disabled staff compared to non-disabled staff saying that they have felt pressure from their manager to come to work, despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties.

The wording of our survey question is different and covers a shorter timeframe. This survey question was asked only to disabled respondents.

CQC Question Text – March 2021 Pulse Survey	Disabled	vs 2020’s report
In the last 3 months, have you felt pressure from your manager to come to work, despite not feeling well enough to perform your duties?	8.4%	-6.6

The data used for 2020’s report comes from our November 2019 People Survey.

What our data is telling us:

• The figure has improved since the 2020 report (November 2019 survey).

Some of the actions we are taking:

• We will create a catalogue of learning and training for colleagues and managers to help them best support disabled colleagues, including awareness of language, accessibility, mental health, and neurodiversity etc. This will be added alongside other DEN internal events aimed at line manager understanding.
• We will build stronger relationships with DEN and Freedom to Speak Up Guardians and Ambassadors, in order for DEN members and disabled colleagues to understand how to raise if they are being pressured to return to work when unwell.

---

Metric 7

Metric 7 concerns the percentage of disabled staff compared to non-disabled staff saying that they are satisfied with the extent to which their organisation values their work.

What our data is telling us:

• We have not asked this question in previous CQC people surveys, therefore we cannot report on this figure for this report.
• However, a new question “I believe that CQC values my work” has been included in our recent November/December 2021 People Survey. Early findings show that our disabled colleagues score lower than non-disabled colleagues for believing that CQC values their work.

Data comparisons to the 2020 WDES NHS Trusts report and the 2020 ALB report:

• Disabled staff remain less likely to feel valued in NHS Trusts (39.1%) compared to non-disabled staff (50.4%). Similar figures are shown in the ALB report where disabled staff feel valued less (40.5%) compared to non-disabled staff (48.9%) (only two ALBs reported on this metric).

Some of the actions we are taking:

• We will continue to highlight our disabled colleagues’ lived experiences at our All Colleague Conference, Disability History Month events and on our CEO’s All Colleague Calls, in order to showcase the value and contribution of our disabled colleagues.
• We will continue to monitor People Surveys and exit interviews, to see if these reveal trends that disabled colleagues are unhappy or are leaving because they feel CQC undervalues their work.
• We will continue to encourage disabled colleagues to participate in the current cohorts of Disability Rights UK apprenticeships.

---

Metric 8

Metric 8 concerns the percentage of disabled staff saying that their employer has made adequate adjustment(s) to enable them to carry out their work.

The wording of our question is slightly different.

CQC Question Text – March 2021 Pulse Survey	Disabled	vs 2020’s report
Has CQC made appropriate reasonable adjustments to enable you to carry out your work?	67%	+16.1

The data used for 2020’s report comes from our November 2019 People Survey.

What our data is telling us:

• The figure has improved since the 2020 report (November 2019 survey).

Data comparisons to the 2020 WDES NHS Trusts report:

• 73.8% of disabled staff within NHS Trusts felt their employer had made adequate adjustments, slightly higher than CQC’s figure of 67%. The NHS Trusts’ figure has remained largely unchanged for five years, as opposed to CQC’s figure which has increased over the past year. 42% of Trusts, and five out of nine national healthcare organisations, have not yet introduced a reasonable adjustments policy.
• Early findings from our November/December People Survey tell us the figure has declined, therefore it is crucial we continue to try and improve this figure.

Some of the actions we are taking:

• We will continue to review the reasonable adjustments policy and feedback on the policy has been asked from all the networks. With the updated policy and promotion, we hope more disabled colleagues can make reasonable adjustments to enable them to carry out their work.
• We will also re-publish our policies in an accessible format, to enable colleagues with accessibility needs to access and read our HR policies without struggle.
• We will investigate ways to track reasonable adjustments across the CQC in order to make sure people’s reasonable adjustments are kept up to date.
• We will use events to promote good practice examples of where people have had reasonable adjustments successfully at work, in order to help both colleagues and line managers understand how to obtain and utilise reasonable adjustments.
• We will continue to make sure new starters get specialist equipment on Day 0 when they join the CQC.
• We will continue looking into how the “Access to Work” scheme can be improved to make sure colleagues who rely on the government’s Access to Work support can get the support they need more efficiently with fewer delays.
• We will launch an Accessibility project to raise awareness and address accessibility barriers disabled colleagues may face in the workplace. We will focus on areas of training and learning to help colleagues understand how to make work accessible and identify technology that may need improving to meet accessibility needs.

---

Metric 9a

Metric 9a requires that we calculate the staff engagement score for disabled staff, compared to non-disabled staff.

What our data is telling us:

• We have not asked this question in previous CQC people surveys, therefore we cannot report on this figure for this report.
• However, it will be reportable in our recent November/December 2021 People Survey. Early findings show that the staff engagement score for our disabled colleagues is slightly lower than the engagement score for our non-disabled colleagues.

Some of the actions we are taking:

• We will continue to highlight our disabled colleagues’ lived experiences at our All Colleague Conference, Disability History Month events and on our CEO’s All Colleague Calls, to showcase the value and contribution of our disabled colleagues.
• We will continue to grow the Disability Equality Network and make sure the Chairs have the support they need to grow their Network so that members can be heard.
• We will continue to monitor the People Survey results to hear thoughts and feedback from disabled colleagues.

---

Metric 9b

Metric 9b requires that we state whether our organisation has taken action to facilitate the voices of disabled staff in our organisation to be heard. If our organisation has taken action, we are asked to provide one practical example of action taken in the last 12 months to engage with disabled staff.

We have a fully supported and embedded Disability Equality Network (DEN) who we work with on a wide range of decisions and issues, including the WDES report and action plan.

Example 1: The Disability Equality Network Chair attends CQC Board on a bi-annual basis to provide updates on their work, any barriers they are facing and priorities for the coming year.

Example 2: We engage with disabled colleagues as part of our Equality Impact Assessment process, as well as to seek feedback when there are HR Policy reviews (including our recently updated policy on reasonable adjustments).

Example 3: The DEN chairs are members of the WDES Project Group which drives the actions of the WDES project plan.

---

Metric 10

Metric 10 requires that we report the percentage difference between the organisation’s Board voting membership and its overall workforce disaggregated by voting membership of the Board, and Executive membership of the Board.

The ‘overall workforce’ figure below includes those in grades defined as ‘Other/Ad Hoc’ that are not reported in the four ‘clusters’ in metric 1 (in which the overall total is 8.4%).

Category	Non-Disabled	Disabled	Not Stated
(i) Non-Executive membership	50.0%	0.0%	50.0%
(ii) Executive membership	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Overall Board Membership	75.0%	0.0%	25.0%
Overall Workforce	86.0%	8.3%	5.7%

Difference between Board and overall workforce (category percentage minus overall workforce percentage)

Category	Non-Disabled	Disabled	Not Stated
(i) Non-Executive membership	50.0 – 86.0 = -36.0%	0.0 - 8.3 = -8.3%	50.0 - 5.7 = 44.3%
(ii) Executive membership	100.0 – 86.0 = 14.0%	0.0 - 8.3 = -8.3%	0.0 - 5.7 = -5.7%
Overall Board Membership	75.0 – 86.0 = -11.0%	0.0 - 8.3 = -8.3%	25.0 - 5.7 = 19.3%

What our data is telling us:

• The overall percentage difference between Board and overall workforce is a negative figure (-8.3%) as there are no Board members who are disabled.
• The figure has declined since the 2020 report due to the Board representation figure remaining at zero and the increase in overall figure of disabled colleagues in the organisation, thus meaning the gap has widened.
• 100% of the Executive team have self-reported not having a disability. However, 50% of our Non-Executive members have not stated whether they have a disability or not.

Data comparisons to the 2020 WDES NHS Trusts report and the 2020 ALB report:

• Within NHS Trusts, representation of disabled people on Boards increased to 3% in 2020.
• Across eight national healthcare organisations (which includes CQC), only 1 board member has self-reported a disability. All organisations that have a board said they have a board lead for disability.

Some of the actions we are taking:

• We will work with Board members to build understanding of the importance of self-reporting their disability status.
• We will continue supporting the joint network voice to be at Board meetings throughout the year and build stronger relationships with the Board and the Disability Equality Network Chair.
• We will continue to work closely with the DHSC recruitment team to reinforce the organisation’s commitment to attract and recruit more disabled people.

---

Appendix

Cluster 4: AfC Band 8c, 8d, 9 and VSM (including Executive Board members)

Cluster 3: AfC Band 8a and 8b

Cluster 2: AfC Band 5, 6 and 7

Cluster 1: AfC Band 1, 2, 3 and 4