IBI-3a Accepted

Medical Education - Curriculum

Infected Blood Inquiry · Infected Blood Inquiry Final Report · Issued 20 May 2024 · Addressed to: GMC, UK Government

Source — verbatim from the inquiry

Inquiry recommendation

The General Medical Council, and NHS Education for Scotland, Health Education and Improvement Wales, Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency and NHS England, should take steps to ensure that those “lessons to be learned” which relate to clinical practice should be incorporated in every doctor’s training.

Infected Blood Inquiry, Infected Blood Inquiry Final Report · 20 May 2024 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:

- The Government stated in December 2024 that a combined working group including NHS England, four-nation blood services, and statutory education bodies had been established to integrate the Inquiry's lessons into medical training (Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Cabinet Office, December 2024).
- The GMC confirmed that blood transfusion learning is embedded in practical procedures (since 2009) and postgraduate curricula, and that a survey targeting undergraduate and postgraduate medical training was underway (Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Cabinet Office, December 2024).
- No published training materials specifically incorporating the Infected Blood Inquiry's findings have been identified to March 2026.

Response — verbatim from government

UK Government — initial response

Medicine is constantly evolving and it is crucial that doctor’s training is kept up to date. The Inquiry’s May 2024 report is a valuable resource in learning the lessons of the past, recognising that those responsible for medical education have an important role in ensuring that this happens in practice, and a reminder that patient safety should be the central focus for everything. Patients, the public and those impacted by the tragic events described in the Inquiry should expect no less.

The General Medical Council (GMC)’s regulatory requirements for medical education and training in the UK feature learning in blood transfusion. These have been embodied in the GMC’s practical procedures for undergraduate education since 2009, the content map requirements that are part of the new Medical Licensing Assessment and in the postgraduate curricula that GMC approve. These checks and balances are underpinned by GMC standards for UK medical education and training, and in the generic professional skills frameworks that have safety and quality improvement at their core.

In terms of action taken, the GMC has continued to use its convening powers to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are working together to identify and share how the Inquiry is influencing reflection and action that will strengthen learning. The results of GMC’s survey of medical schools, medical royal colleges and faculties were reflected in the December 2024 update to Parliament and showed a range of activity designed to strengthen learning on the safe delivery of transfusions. The aim is to gather any further reflections on the Inquiry’s findings, details of current arrangements for training in blood transfusion and details of action that is being taken. To this end the GMC has requested updates from medical schools, medical royal colleges and faculties with the aim of feeding back to DHSC findings by the end of June 2025.

Stakeholder collaboration is being supported by the work NHS England’s Workforce Training and Education Directorate and NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) are coordinating. NHS England have kept GMC updated on developments. This is taking place with professional education leaders across the four nations and professions to jointly consider recommendations 3 and 7d. This broad-based group is completing work on deep dives into the professions to determine where the gaps are in undergraduate education, postgraduate training and across the established workforce. The work is underpinned by a number of sub-groups, either up and running or planned over this year, that are focussing on healthcare scientists, doctors and medical students, nursing, allied health and other professions. The discovery for healthcare science and medics is further ahead due to the surveys that have already been completed as part of Transfusion 2024, but others are not too far behind.

Overall, the four-nation group is making good progress and looking to implement accessible and impactful educational resources/learning for the gaps identified. Any recommendations arising from that may have regulatory implications, for example where changes are being proposed to postgraduate curricula. These can be escalated to the GMC through the established processes.

UK Government · 14 May 2025 Written response →

GMC — follow-up

The GMC surveyed medical schools on blood transfusion training. A four-nation collaborative group is identifying gaps in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula. The GMC confirmed that regulatory requirements for medical education feature learning in blood transfusion.

GMC · 14 May 2025 Written response →

Evidence trail — what's actually happened since

  • 15 Jan 2026 · IBCA Community Update As of 13 January 2026: 3,721 people asked to start claims, 3,546 begun process, 3,074 received offers totalling £2.47bn, 2,861 paid totalling £1.89bn. Third compensation regulations in force 31 December 2025. View source → Good Progress
  • 28 Oct 2025 · IBCA Independent Review IBCA has contacted 2,215 people to begin compensation claims; 1,934 started process. £812m+ paid via Horizon Shortfall Scheme. £11.8bn committed in Autumn Budget. View source → Reasonable Progress

Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.

How this page is built

Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.

This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.