Section one: Contracting authority
one.1) Name and addresses
Care Quality Commission
Citygate, Gallowgate
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 4PA
commercialcontracts@cqc.org.uk
Country
United Kingdom
NUTS code
UK - United Kingdom
Internet address(es)
Main address
Buyer's address
one.4) Type of the contracting authority
Body governed by public law
one.5) Main activity
Health
Section two: Object
two.1) Scope of the procurement
two.1.1) Title
RM6126 DPS Call Off Contract for Rapid Literature Review: Professional Judgement - Research 4
Reference number
CQC EP&S 028
two.1.2) Main CPV code
- 73200000 - Research and development consultancy services
two.1.3) Type of contract
Services
two.1.4) Short description
DPS Call-Off contract for Rapid Literature Review: Professional Judgement - Research 4.
This procurement was undertaken through the CCS Research and Insights Dynamic Marketplace DPS (RM6126) following a further competition process.
The contract is awarded for total period of 6 months.
Total Awarded Value is maximum of all charges.
two.1.6) Information about lots
This contract is divided into lots: No
two.1.7) Total value of the procurement (excluding VAT)
Value excluding VAT: £41,125
two.2) Description
two.2.2) Additional CPV code(s)
- 79000000 - Business services: law, marketing, consulting, recruitment, printing and security
- 79000000 - Business services: law, marketing, consulting, recruitment, printing and security
two.2.3) Place of performance
NUTS codes
- UK - United Kingdom
two.2.4) Description of the procurement
This procurement was undertaken through the CCS Research and Insights Dynamic Marketplace Dynamic Purchasing Agreement (RM6126). The Call-Off contract was awarded following a further competition process.
We are seeking a rapid review of literature looking at the role of professional intuition and how this informs judgements of risk, and how this can be operationalised.
CQC inspectors make assessments and judgements on the quality of care being delivered by health and adult social care services. To do this, they consider all available data on the service (e.g. information captured on site-visits, people’s experiences, performance and outcomes data, incident reports etc) using their professional intuition, where they draw on their experience and professional expertise to interpret the data available to them.
There is a breadth of existing literature exploring the role of intuition within professional judgement and how this cognitive process can be conceptualised in a way that supports professionals to include their intuition as part of their rational, systematic decision-making. Research also explores the limitations of incorporating this intuition, outlining the potential risks of over-reliance on intuition in place of empirical evidence.
There is relevant research pertaining to professional intuition from health and social care as well as other high-risk industries such as aviation, finance etc.
This rapid review will help to inform how we should consider the role of professional intuition when considering data to judging quality and risk. It should offer practical learning of how best to capture, codify and utilise intuitive judgements in our assessments of quality of care and when making regulatory decisions. The findings should also help us to understand when professional intuition can be effectively incorporated, outlining the conditions for doing so, acknowledging any limitations of this approach. This will offer the evidence needed to shape the development of tools and processes to support assessments of health and social care services as part of our regulation.
We are seeking a rapid literature review of this existing research and relevant grey literature to:
• Synthesise what is known about how intuition in the making of professional judgements relating to risk is understood and conceptualised in health and adult social care as well as relevant evidence from other high-risk industries.
• Synthesise what is known about the benefits and limitations of intuition informed decision making in relation to risk, including if and when it would be appropriate to incorporate intuitive decision making as part of judgements and formal assessments of quality of care.
• Reflect on how CQC could incorporate professional intuition as part of our regulatory approach when making assessments of quality of care and the practical considerations for how this could be implemented including the potential capturing, and codifying of this information.
two.2.5) Award criteria
Quality criterion - Name: Quality / Weighting: 70
Price - Weighting: 30
two.2.11) Information about options
Options: No
two.2.13) Information about European Union Funds
The procurement is related to a project and/or programme financed by European Union funds: No
Section four. Procedure
four.1) Description
four.1.1) Type of procedure
Restricted procedure
four.1.8) Information about the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA)
The procurement is covered by the Government Procurement Agreement: Yes
four.2) Administrative information
four.2.1) Previous publication concerning this procedure
Notice number: 2021/S 000-027493
Section five. Award of contract
A contract/lot is awarded: Yes
five.2) Award of contract
five.2.1) Date of conclusion of the contract
25 January 2023
five.2.2) Information about tenders
Number of tenders received: 3
Number of tenders received from SMEs: 0
Number of tenders received from tenderers from other EU Member States: 0
Number of tenders received from tenderers from non-EU Member States: 3
Number of tenders received by electronic means: 3
The contract has been awarded to a group of economic operators: No
five.2.3) Name and address of the contractor
RSM UK Consulting LLP
25 Farringdon Street, London,
London
EC4A 4AB
Country
United Kingdom
NUTS code
- UKI43 - Haringey and Islington
National registration number
OC397475
Internet address
The contractor is an SME
Yes
five.2.4) Information on value of contract/lot (excluding VAT)
Initial estimated total value of the contract/lot: £41,125
Total value of the contract/lot: £41,125
Section six. Complementary information
six.4) Procedures for review
six.4.1) Review body
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London
EC4A 1NL
Country
United Kingdom
Internet address
https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/technology-and-construction-court