F114

Complaints handling

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

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

Comments or complaints which describe events amounting to an adverse or serious untoward incident should trigger an investigation.

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in February 2026, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England reported that this recommendation was superseded, citing statutory duties to investigate complaints alongside guidance under the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework to combine complaint and safety incident investigations where possible (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). Earlier, in May 2024, the Thirlwall Inquiry legal team noted that the government had accepted the recommendation and had pointed to NHS England's Serious Incident Framework published in March 2015 (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.

About this summary
This recommendation applies across many organisations. The record above reflects central policy activity; adoption in individual organisations may vary.

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 fundamental principle of the current complaints arrangements for handling NHS and adult social care complaints is that a case should be handled according to the needs of that individual case. Investigation should be proportionate to the needs of the case, but any concern about patient safety needs to be robustly investigated. The Department of Health strongly agrees that complaints amounting to a serious or untoward incident warrant independent local investigation and we want to see all NHS Trusts using their statutory powers to offer this to patients.
NHS England’s guidance The Serious Incident Framework (http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/sif-guide.pdf) sets out how Serious Incidents should be managed. It states that ‘Initial incident grading should err on the side of caution, categorising and treating an incident as a serious incident if there is any possibility that it is.’ Furthermore it states that ‘All serious incidents should be investigated using best practice methodologies such as root cause analysis.’ Any complaint alleging that a Serious Incident has occurred should therefore be investigated. The Care Quality Commission already uses a range of information about complaints to inform the timing and focus of its inspections, and through the Chief Inspectors, is currently exploring how it can give greater prominence to complaints and safety alerts in its revised surveillance and inspection model.
The definition of a Serious Incident is:
• an incident that occurred during NHS funded healthcare (including in the community), which resulted in one or more of the following:
• unexpected or avoidable death or severe harm of one or more patients, staff or members of the public;
• a never event – all never events are defined as serious incidents although not all never events necessarily result in severe harm or death;
• a scenario that prevents, or threatens to prevent, an organisation’s ability to continue to deliver healthcare services, including data loss, property damage or incidents in population programmes like screening and immunisation where harm potentially may extend to a large population;
• allegations, or incidents, of physical abuse and sexual assault or abuse; and/or
• loss of confidence in the service, adverse media coverage or public concern about healthcare or an organisation.
The current NHS England Serious Incident Framework is a working draft and will therefore be updated and clarified in relation to this recommendation.

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

Where a complaint is made by someone other than another NHS body, local authority or by an employee of the relevant NHS body and such complaint is unresolved to the satisfaction of the complainant within 1 working day there is a statutory requirement on NHS bodies to investigate and respond to complaints made to them regarding the provision of health services (see regulations 8 and 14 of the Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009).

Guidance on engaging and involving patients, families and staff following a patient safety incident is available under the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework. Where possible, and if the complainant agrees, the complaint investigation and patient safety incident investigation should be combined so that the patient/family get all the answers they are seeking together. Note, however, that the complaint may not limit itself to learning issues. When it is not possible to combine the two responses, how communication with those affected is best managed needs to be considered (see also PHSO Complaints Standards Framework).

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. 114, PDF page 479.

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

NHS England’s guidance The Serious Incident Framework sets out how Serious Incidents should be managed. NHS England is reviewing the Serious Incident Framework, but it agrees it is important that the level of investigation required following a serious incident will vary according to the severity of the incident. In some circumstances, fully independent investigation by an external team will be appropriate.

NHS England will be publishing an update of the Serious Incident Framework in due course.

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 healthcare providers, 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 Department of Health said it agreed that complaints amounting to serious untoward incidents warranted independent local investigation. The Government referring to NHS England’s Serious Incident Framework, which set out how serious incidents should be managed, and which was published in March 2015.

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. 114, PDF page 445.

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.