F133

Role of commissioners in complaints

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

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

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

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

Commissioners should be entitled to intervene in the management of an individual complaint on behalf of the patient where it appears to them it is not being dealt with satisfactorily, while respecting the principle that it is the provider who has primary responsibility to process and respond to complaints about its services.

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 February 2026, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England stated that complaint handling standards are a contractual requirement under the NHS standard contract, adding that work was underway to refresh the oversight and assurance process for integrated care board complaints handling (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). In May 2024, the Thirlwall Inquiry legal team noted that the government had accepted the recommendation only in principle, having raised concerns that allowing commissioning bodies to intervene in individual complaints would create uncertainty over roles and responsibilities (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.
While we accept the spirit of this recommendation, we are concerned that it risks creating uncertainty over roles and responsibilities in the management of complaints. Clarity and consistency are critical for the patient.
The NHS complaints process is based upon the premise that complaints are best dealt with by the local organisation. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, they are able to seek an independent review through the Health Service Ombudsman.
We accept that in the cases of complaints of a serious nature, that may indicate a possible failure in care or a continued risk to patient safety, commissioners will want to be aware and take action where they believe a provider is in breach of their contract with regard to patient safety and service quality. The NHS standard contract requires providers to ‘implement Lessons Learned from complaints and demonstrate at Review Meetings the extent to which Service improvements have been made as a result’ – these review meetings take place between the provider and the commissioner. However, one of the lessons of the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry has been that this information needs to be meaningful – just noting the numbers of complaints received by an organisation is not effective. For 2014–15, NHS England are considering broadening the requirement on Lessons Learned to cover a wider spectrum of information, such as complaints, incidents and feedback from service users and staff, and the extent to which service improvements have been made as a result.
The Department of Health will ensure that each quarter every hospital publishes information on the complaints it has received. This will include:
• the number of complaints received, as a percentage of patient interventions in that period;
• the number of complaints the hospital has been informed have subsequently been referred to the Ombudsman; and
• lessons learned and improvements made as a result of complaints.
The Department of Health will work with NHS England and other key partners to determine the most effective mechanism through which to achieve these outcomes.
The standard contract also requires the Provider to provide a complaints monitoring report. For 2014–15 NHS England are considering clarifying the expected content of the complaints report, to include meaningful information on complaints such as analysis of key themes in the content of complaints as well as the number of complaints received for each theme.
The NHS Standard Contract already provides commissioners with powers to intervene in certain circumstances, for example to require remedial action, to impose financial sanctions, to suspend services or to terminate a contract. However, we are examining whether these provisions should be strengthened for 2014–15, with a view to making more specific provision for commissioner intervention, to suspend a service or an element of it, where there are reasonable grounds for material concern about patient safety or outcomes.
However, enabling commissioning bodies to intervene in the management of an individual complaint would undermine the fundamental principle that local organisations themselves are, in the first instance, responsible for seeking to resolve a complaint. A commissioner could intervene if it considers an organisation’s general handling of complaints cases needs to be improved – but their intervention would not be about the specifics of an individual case.
The current complaints arrangements (laid out in regulations) are based on a 2-stage model. The first stage is local resolution. At this local level, a complaint about service provision may be made to either the service provider or to the body commissioning the service (but not both). If the person making the complaint is not satisfied with the outcome at this local resolution stage, they have the right to ask the Health Service Ombudsman to investigate the case. The Ombudsman is independent of Government and the NHS, accountable to Parliament.

Response document: 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 say in progress · 27 Feb 2026

The NHS Complaint Standards, model complaint handling procedure and good complaint handling guides set out how organisations providing NHS services should approach complaint handling. They apply to all NHS organisations in England and independent healthcare providers who deliver NHS-funded care.

This is a contractual requirement via the NHS Standard Contract, and is subject to routine contract monitoring.

Complaints can be referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman should the complainant remain unsatisfied with the handling of their complaint by the Provider.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman provides an independent complaint handling service for complaints that have not been resolved by the NHS in England and UK government departments.

In line with the 2022 reforms NHS England is currently refreshing the oversight and assurance process for ICB complaints handling.

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 18.2 No. 133, PDF page 488.

●Department of Health and Social Care states no delivery position · 11 Feb 2015

No further update is required. Please see response to the recommendation in Hard Truths

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 commissioners, 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 principle.

The Government said that, while in complaints of a serious nature, commissioners would want to be aware and take action where they believe da provider was in breach of their contract with regard to patient safety and service quality, complaints were best dealt with by the local organisations. The Government said it was concerned that the recommendation risked uncertainty over roles and responsibilities in the management of complaints if commissioning bodies could intervene in the management of an individual complaint.

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. 133, PDF page 454-455.

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.