F62

Improved patient focus

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

Government responseDepartment of Health and Social Care: Accepted (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

For as long as it retains responsibility for the regulation of foundation trusts, Monitor should incorporate greater patient and public involvement into its own structures, to ensure this focus is always at the forefront of its work.

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 submitted in September 2024 and published in February 2026, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England reported that Monitor had merged into the latter body, which hosts an assembly of patient representatives and issued guidance in 2023 on statutory public involvement duties (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). Earlier, in May 2024, the Thirlwall Inquiry legal team found that implementation remained unconfirmed, having reviewed the government's previous progress updates (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 · 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.
A central theme of Monitor’s Quality Governance Framework is whether the Boards of NHS organisations actively engage patients, staff and other key stakeholders on quality. From April 2013 it is also a licence condition that Foundation Trusts actively engage with patients on the quality of care and take into account their views. Monitor’s assessment process includes reviews of patient surveys and the NHS staff survey, meetings with staff and patient groups, review of access and outcome metrics, local media coverage and interviews with lead commissioners, the Care Quality Commission and external and internal auditors. Monitor also writes to local MPs and Healthwatch to see if they have any concerns they wish to raise. As part of Monitor’s Quality Governance review they seek to understand the Trust Board’s arrangements to actively engage with patients. Levels of service performance and standards of care quality form part of Monitor’s regular risk assessment of Foundation Trusts including the Care Quality Commission’s judgements on the quality of care provided. Monitor also expects licence holders to notify them in the event of any incident, event or report that may raise potential concerns over compliance with the licence. Regulatory action may also be triggered by information from local patient groups if it represents a material concern. This is underpinned by two-way sharing of information on patient complaints by Monitor and Care Quality Commission and sharing of intelligence on the quality of care by regional and local Quality Surveillance Groups. Where enforcement action is required further intelligence may be sought including seeking the views of patient representatives and undertaking further analysis of the complaints made to the Foundation Trust, Monitor and Care Quality Commission.
To further embed patient involvement in Monitor’s processes, Monitor is currently engaging with the Department of Health on the recruitment of a Medical Advisor and Director of Patient and Clinical Engagement, and has developed three patient engagement work strands which will be taken forward over the next 12 months.
Projects are underway working with a social research consultancy, patient representative bodies, Healthwatch and other national level health organisations, to help Monitor better understand what good practice looks like when engaging and consulting with patients, the public and their representatives.
Monitor has also pledged to build the use of patient intelligence and complaints into their regulatory approach, working closely with the Care Quality Commission, and will put in place a plan to ensure that ‘patients first’ is embedded into its culture and ways of working.

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

NHS Monitor has now merged with NHS England.

NHS commissioning organisations have a legal duty to involve the public in the commissioning of services for NHS patients (‘the public involvement duty’). Duty to promote involvement of each patient is required under s.14Z36. In 2023 NHS England produced guidance for ICBs, FTs, Trusts and NHS England to assist in complying with their involvement obligations

NHS commissioning organisations are required to publish an annual assessment of how well they are meeting this duty as part statutory annual reporting.

NHS England hosts the NHS Assembly, a body of some 50 members who include people with lived experience of healthcare and leaders of patient representative organisations, as well as professional leaders in healthcare.

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. 62, PDF page 456-457.

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

Monitor appointed Hugo Mascie-Taylor as Medical Director and Director of Patient and Clinical Engagement in May 2014. A good practice toolkit to guide Monitor’s patient engagement has also been developed and a patient awareness programme undertaken including an all staff event on making a difference for patients. ‘Patients first’ is now one of Monitor’s five values and further work is planned to embed the values into Monitor’s everyday work.

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 Monitor, 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

This recommendation was accepted by the Government.

In the January 2014 Hard Truths report, the Government referred to Monitor engaging with the Department of Health on recruitment of Medical Advisor and Director of Patient and Clinical Engagement, as well as development of patient engagement work strand. The Government said that Monitor’s assessment process included review of patient and staff surveys, meetings with staff and patient groups, local media coverage, interviews with lead commissions external and internal auditors and writing to local MPs and Healthwatch. The Government also referred to Monitor working with patient representative bodies and using patient intelligence.

In the February 2015 Culture Change Report, the Government said that Monitor had appointed a Director of Patient and Clinical Engagement in May 2014, as well as developed a good practice guide to guide patient engagement. “Patients first” was said to be one of Monitor’s 5 values.

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. 62, PDF page 421.

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.