F41

Use of information about compliance by regulator from: Patient safety alerts

Mid Staffs Inquiry · Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry · Issued 6 February 2013 · Addressed to: CQC

Government responseDepartment of Health and Social Care: Accepted in part (Nov 2013)

DeliveryDHSC and NHS England state no delivery position (Feb 2026)Department of Health and Social Care says in progress (Feb 2015)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

The Care Quality Commission should have a clear responsibility to review decisions not to comply with patient safety alerts and to oversee the effectiveness of any action required to implement them. Information-sharing with the Care Quality Commission regarding patient safety alerts should continue following the transfer of the National Patient Safety Agency's functions in June 2012 to the NHS Commissioning Board.

Mid Staffs Inquiry, Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry · 6 Feb 2013 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

AI-generated evidence summary

In commentary from September 2024 published in February 2026, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England stated that under a redesigned National Patient Safety Alerts system, alerts note that failure to take required actions may lead to Care Quality Commission regulatory action, and the commission uses compliance indicators in assessments (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). Earlier, in May 2024, the Thirlwall Inquiry legal team noted that the recommendation had been accepted in principle, observing that the government maintained providers retain accountability for implementing alerts rather than the regulator overseeing individual decisions (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.

Report-level response context

Government responded via "Hard Truths: The Journey to Putting Patients First" (2014), a single document covering all 290 recommendations with a blanket acceptance. Individual recommendation responses were not broken out.

Government response

●Department of Health and Social Care · Accepted in part · 19 Nov 2013

Speaker not recorded. Source: Department of Health, Hard Truths: the Journey to Putting Patients First, volume 2 (Cm 8777-II), November 2013

Accepted in principle.
The Care Quality Commission already monitors compliance with patient safety alerts, such as those issued by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and is able to investigate further where it identifies the need to do so in order to hold providers to account for failures to act on them. The Care Quality Commission is currently exploring how it can give greater prominence to safety alerts in its revised surveillance and inspection model. However care is needed to be clear that providers retain accountability for implementing patient safety alerts. It is not the Care Quality Commission’s role to oversee providers’ individual decisions or actions. Providers must be able to explain and account for how they act on safety alerts; the Care Quality Commission’s role will be to assess their capability and performance in terms of whether it results in good quality care.
NHS England is developing proposals for a new system of safety alerts, and, to strengthen the ability to monitor alerts and compliance with them, the Care Quality Commission is closely involved in that work. The role of regulation is integrated into an overall approach that allows for both safety improvement and accountability.

Extract from: Hard Truths: The Journey to Putting Patients First. Volume Two of the Government Response to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry: Response to the Inquiry's Recommendations

Site note: This is volume two of "Hard Truths: The Journey to Putting Patients First" (Cm 8777-II), the government's response to the Inquiry's 290 recommendations, published by the Department of Health on GOV.UK on 19 November 2013 and dated to that day here. The PDF the row links to is the accessible edition, whose title page reads "January 2014". The Department of Health has been the Department of Health and Social Care since January 2018. The volume says it includes accounts from each of the national organisations the recommendations name, but it does not mark which passage each organisation wrote, so every row is filed under the Department that published it.

Delivery

●DHSC and NHS England state no delivery position · 27 Feb 2026

Led by NHS England, there is now a redesigned system for National Patient Safety Alerts. Each alert includes reference to the fact that failure to take the actions required may lead to CQC taking regulatory action. CQC uses indicators on declared compliance with alerts in their assessments. See the response to recommendation 35 for information on how regulators work together, and the current regulatory landscape.

Patient safety alerting

NHS England currently issues alerts as ‘National Patient Safety Alerts’ and is accredited by the National Patient Safety Alerting Committee (NaPSAC). All National Patient Safety Alerts are required to meet NaPSAC’s thresholds and standards, which include working with patients, frontline staff and experts to ensure alerts provide clear, effective actions to reduce the risk of death or disability.

NaPSAC requires healthcare providers to introduce new systems for planning and coordinating the actions required by any National Patient Safety Alert across their organisation, and must include executive oversight.

Each NatPSA includes reference to the fact that failure to take the actions required under any National Patient Safety Alert may lead to CQC taking regulatory action. CQC uses indicators on declared compliance with alerts in their assessments.

The Learn from Patient Safety Events (LFPSE) service is a national NHS system for the recording and analysis of patient safety events that occur in healthcare. This replaced the National Reporting and Learning System.

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 “Superseded”. Table row: section 18.2 No. 41, PDF page 446.

●Department of Health and Social Care says in progress · 11 Feb 2015

The Care Quality Commission is giving greater prominence to safety alerts in its revised surveillance model. The Care Quality Commission’s NHS acute Intelligent Monitoring system includes a composite indicator around completion of safety alerts which contributes to providers’ risk scores.

The Care Quality Commission is continuing to develop its approach to the use of data and intelligence, including the role of safety alerts, across all the sectors it regulates, both to inform risk identification and to support and test inspection findings, as an integral part of its new regulatory approach

Providers are expected to retain accountability for implementing patient safety alerts while demonstrating safety improvement and learning in order to give safety alerts more prominence in the inspection model.

From: Culture Change in the NHS supporting Annex (annex to Culture change in the NHS: applying the lessons of the Francis Inquiries)

Site note: This is the supporting annex published on 11 February 2015 with "Culture change in the NHS: applying the lessons of the Francis Inquiries" (Cm 9009), attached to the GOV.UK page as "Culture change in the NHS supporting annex". The annex has no title page; that title is GOV.UK's and the PDF's own. Its table has four columns (No., Recommendation, Hard Truths Government response, Progress update), and the row carries the Progress update cell. No column says which organisation wrote an update, so the row is filed under the Department of Health (now the Department of Health and Social Care), which published it.

Site note: The Inquiry addressed this recommendation to the Care Quality Commission, not to the Department of Health. The annex gives this update in the Department's publication and does not say who wrote it, so the row is the Department's report of the progress made on it.

What other bodies have found

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

●Thirlwall Inquiry legal team · 15 May 2024

The Government accepted this recommendation in principle.

In the January 2014 Hard Truths report, the Government said that the Care Quality Commission was giving greater prominence to safety alerts in its revised surveillance model, with the Intelligent Monitoring system including a composite indicator around completion of safety alerts which contributed to providers’ risk scores.

However, the Government said that care was needed to be clear that providers retained accountability for implementing patient safety alerts, with it not being the Care Quality Commission’s role to oversee their individual decisions or actions.

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 16.2 No. 41, PDF page 409.

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.