42

Register external reviews with CQC

Morecambe Bay Investigation · Report of the Morecambe Bay Investigation · Issued 3 March 2015 · Addressed to: CQC

Government responseDepartment of Health and Social Care: Accepted (Jul 2015)

DeliveryDHSC and NHS England say in progress (Feb 2026)DHSC states no delivery position (May 2024)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

We further recommend that all external reviews of suspected service failures be registered with the Care Quality Commission and Monitor, and that the Care Quality Commission develops a system to collate learning from reviews and disseminate it to other Trusts. Action: the Care Quality Commission, Monitor.

Morecambe Bay Investigation, Report of the Morecambe Bay Investigation · 3 Mar 2015 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

AI-generated evidence summary

The Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England stated in February 2026 that joint oversight groups are used with the Care Quality Commission to monitor provider risks, citing a 2022 framework requiring healthcare organisations to alert regulators to concerns found in reviews (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). In May 2024, the Thirlwall Inquiry legal team found no record of promised government proposals to mandate notifications, noting that online guidance asking trusts to disclose external reviews as a "matter of course" left it unclear whether compliance was a statutory requirement (The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team, May 2024).

AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 26 Sep 2026.

Government response

●Department of Health and Social Care · Accepted · 16 Jul 2015

Words of: Department of Health, Learning not blaming (Cm 9113), government response to the Morecambe Bay Investigation and two other reports, July 2015

43. We accept these recommendations. A new national, Independent Patient Safety Investigation Service will improve local standards of investigation and openness. 44. During the 10-year period in which serious incidents were occurring at Morecambe Bay, the Investigation found that there had been external reviews conducted into operational aspects of the Trust, that were not brought to light in a timely or transparent way and that had regulators been sighted on the Fielding report earlier, action might have been taken sooner to address concerns. 45. NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts are already required to notify the Care Quality Commission and Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority of certain events, such as serious incidents or third party investigations or reports. However we also believe that there is a strong case for requiring providers to notify regulators - both the Care Quality Commission and Monitor or the NHS Trust Development Authority - when they commission external investigations. The Government will consult on proposals to extend the regulations that set out requirements for notifications to cover the commissioning of external investigations. 46. In the meantime, Monitor and the Care Quality Commission will continue to use their respective statutory information-gathering powers to require NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts to notify them of both the commissioning and the conclusions of relevant external investigations. 47. Trusts also have to report in their Quality Account on the number and where available, the rate of patient safety incidents reported within the reporting period, and the number and percentage of such patient safety incidents that resulted in severe harm or death. There is also a requirement to report on whether they have taken part in any reviews or investigations by the Care Quality Commission under section 48 of Health and Social Care Act 2008. We will consider what more can be done to improve awareness and accessibility of this information. 48. There are several existing mechanisms for reporting and sharing learning from serious incidents: • NHS bodies are already required to notify the Care Quality Commission and the National Reporting and Learning System, currently overseen by NHS England, where serious incidents have happened, including those which prompt investigations. Reports to the National Reporting and Learning System are analysed by expert clinicians to identify common hazards, and can result in recommendations being made to local NHS organisations to mitigate these risks and improve the safety of patient care. • The NHS England Serious Incident Framework recommends that providers collaborate with external scrutiny and investigations, including the full and open exchange of information with other investigatory agencies (such as the police, the Health and Safety Executive, Coroner and local safeguarding boards). It also recommends publishing information about serious incidents including data on the numbers and types of incidents, excluding material that would compromise patient confidentiality, within annual reports, board reports and other public facing documents. 49. The Government have accepted the recommendation of Sir Robert Francis QC that national expertise on patient safety should be based within a single organisation that can provide strategic leadership across the whole healthcare system. The Government intend to bring under the single leadership of Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority responsibility for leading the patient safety functions that currently sit with NHS England. The new Independent Patient Safety Investigation Service will also be brought under the single leadership of Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority. A core element of that role would be supporting the NHS to learn from service failures. Responsibility for disseminating learning from external investigations would best sit with the body that has the lead role on patient safety.

Response document: Learning not blaming: The government response to the Freedom to Speak Up consultation, the Public Administration Select Committee report 'Investigating Clinical Incidents in the NHS', and the Morecambe Bay Investigation

Site note: This is the Department of Health's response, "Learning not blaming" (Cm 9113, July 2015), to the Morecambe Bay Investigation and two other reports. The department has been the Department of Health and Social Care since January 2018, and the rows are filed under that name. Every word is the department's, including where it reports what another body has done or will do.

Site note: The recommendation is addressed to the Care Quality Commission; the passage is the Department of Health's account, not that body's. The response gives this passage once, for recommendations 25 and 42 together ("We accept these recommendations"), and the same words are recorded on each.

Delivery

●DHSC and NHS England say in progress · 27 Feb 2026

NHS England and CQC use Joint System Oversight Groups (JSOGs) to review quality issues and risks at providers.

The Academy of Royal Colleges published their updated invited review framework in March 2022. Principle 14 of the framework sets out that healthcare organisations will be responsible for addressing patient safety risks and being open and transparent about them. This includes bringing risks identified in the review to the attention of the CQC and other appropriate regulatory bodies.

From: The Thirlwall Inquiry: Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version dated April 2025)

Site note: DHSC and NHS England's own account of progress, supplied to the Thirlwall Inquiry in September 2024 and printed in the Inquiry legal team's Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version dated April 2025, published 27 February 2026). It is not a finding of the Inquiry. Their reviewed extent of implementation reads “Implemented – Ongoing”. Table row: section 23.2 No. 42, PDF page 656.

●DHSC states no delivery position · 15 May 2024

With regards to disseminating learning, In March 2019 CQC published Learning from Deaths: A review of the first year of NHS trusts implementing the national guidance.

From: The Thirlwall Inquiry: Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version of 15 May 2024), The Department of Health and Social Care

Site note: DHSC's own comments on progress, supplied to the Thirlwall Inquiry in February 2024 and printed in the Inquiry legal team's Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version of 15 May 2024). They are not a finding of the Inquiry. Table row: section 20.2 No. 42, PDF page 621-622.

What other bodies have found

In their own words. These do not change the delivery statement above.

●Thirlwall Inquiry legal team · 15 May 2024

Department of Health response (July 2015):

“The Government will consult on proposals to extend the regulations that set out requirements for notifications to cover the commissioning of external investigations.” (p. 75) Although unable to find government proposal, the Care Quality Commission webpage states that disclosure of commissioning any external revies should be disclosed as a “matter of course” which is unclear whether this is a statutory obligation or suggested guidance. Also this does not form part of the notifications that are meant to go to the Care Quality Commission.

From: The Thirlwall Inquiry: Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version of 15 May 2024)

Site note: The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team's own notes on implementation, from its Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version of 15 May 2024). The review does not colour its Extent of Implementation cell for this recommendation green; it leaves the cell uncoloured where a recommendation was rejected, where evidence of implementation was insufficient, or where steps had been taken but implementation was not yet complete. Table row: section 20.2 No. 42, PDF page 621-622.

How this page is built

The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.