The must-read stories and debate in health policy and leadership.

Sir Andrew Dillon will step down as the chief executive of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in March 2020 after more than 20 years in the role.

It takes a special kind of leader to oversee an organisation for more than two decades and the plaudits are well deserved.

NICE chair David Haslam said: “Sir Andrew has carried out this role for 20 enormously successful years, and everyone who knows him – whether in government, the life sciences industry, or in health and social care – is full of admiration for his calm and skilful leadership.

“He was there right at the birth of NICE, and will leave it as an internationally respected, world leading, and hugely influential organisation. That’s quite a legacy and I’d like to thank him for his unwavering, dedicated service to NICE for the past 20 years and to the NHS before that.”

Sir Andrew joined the NHS as a graduate management trainee in 1975. He went on to be general manager of the Royal Hospital from 1986 to 1991 and then chief executive of St George’s Healthcare Trust from 1991 to 1999.

NICE will advertise for a replacement in the autumn. He leaves some pretty big boots to fill.

On a few rare occasions, NHS trusts have been able to successfully challenge their draft inspection ratings from the Care Quality Commission.

The regulator has produced more than 600 overall ratings since it launched its inspection process in 2014. On four occasions, the provider has pointed out errors in the draft report which meant the overall rating was wrong.

The latest example was St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals Trust, which was given a “good” rating in its draft report, but successfully argued it should have been “outstanding”. Information from the CQC’s database said the trust’s underlying ratings had been incorrectly aggregated.

Ted Baker, the CQC’s chief inspector of hospitals, said: “Our quality assurance process includes giving providers the opportunity to share their views on the factual accuracy before reports are finalised and published.

“We give thorough consideration to this feedback and if this leads to a change in the evidence we will review whether the ratings proposed in the draft report should change.”