F137

Intervention and sanctions for substandard or unsafe services

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: Not accepted (Nov 2013)

DeliveryDHSC and NHS England say not accepted (Feb 2026)Department of Health and Social Care says in progress (Feb 2015)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

Commissioners should have powers of intervention where substandard or unsafe services are being provided, including requiring the substitution of staff or other measures necessary to protect patients from the risk of harm. In the provision of the commissioned services, such powers should be aligned with similar powers of the regulators so that both commissioners and regulators can act jointly, but with the proviso that either can act alone if the other declines to do so. The powers should include the ability to order a provider to stop provision of a service.

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 confirmed that the recommendation was not accepted, noting that the NHS Standard Contract already provides powers to suspend services, terminate contracts, or agree remedial action plans for unsafe care (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). In its February 2026 review, the Thirlwall Inquiry legal team similarly noted that the government did not accept the proposal (The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team, Feb 2026).

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 · Not 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

Not accepted, however we agree the underlying of this recommendation to avoid inaction on the part of regulators and commissioners because of a lack of clarity about their respective roles.
The respective roles of commissioners and regulators in their relationships with providers are different and must be distinct. Commissioners arrange the provision of high quality services to meet the needs of the people they are responsible for, and can take direct action with providers when they are not delivering to contractual specifications. The regulators are charged to ensure that providers meet set standards, and to give regulators and commissioners equivalent powers of intervention would blur the distinction of these roles and risk causing confusion in the system, resulting in inaction because of assumptions that another body is intervening to address a problem.
The NHS Standard Contract enables commissioners to intervene where substandard or unsafe services are being provided. In extremis, under the terms of the standard contract, the commissioners can suspend services, or elements of them, and terminate contracts. Enforcement action, which may entail the substitution of staff, is properly the role of the regulators: the Care Quality Commission will retain all of its existing enforcement powers and will not be constrained from taking swift and decisive action if patients are at immediate risk of harm. Where there is no immediate risk of harm to patients but concerns exist, the Care Quality Commission will normally look to Monitor or the NHS Trust Development Authority to exercise their powers to take enforcement action at NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts. In determining the potential benefits of an intervention, Monitor will consider whether the best outcome for healthcare service users can be achieved by acting themselves or acting together with another organisation, or whether another organisation such as the Care Quality Commission, NHS Trust Development Authority or NHS England has tools that could tackle an issue more effectively, or is already taking steps that are likely to address the potential harm. However any enforcement activity by the Care Quality Commission does not preclude Monitor from exercising its enforcement powers if relevant to do so, and vice versa.
Where Health Education England has concerns about the quality of clinical placements or training being provided by a provider it will take action to remedy this. If necessary, Health Education England will withdraw clinical placements or training programmes from a provider until they are able to demonstrate the required level of improvement and ensure a safe training environment for patients, students and trainees
In Patients First and Foremost the Department of Health agreed that, ‘…regulators and commissioners should ensure that they have a shared picture of provider performance…’ NHS England, clinical commissioning groups, the Care Quality Commission, Monitor, the NHS Trust Development Authority, Health Education England and the professional regulators (General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council) can align their powers of intervention by means of Quality Surveillance Groups. NHS England has rolled Quality Surveillance Groups out across England in each area and region. These are all actively engaged in sharing information and intelligence between commissioners, regulators and other organisations on the quality of care being delivered. If commissioners have concerns about whether providers are meeting the essential standards of quality and safety, Quality Surveillance Groups are one of the mechanisms through which they can raise their concerns with the Care Quality Commission, Monitor and with any other parts of the system with an interest. This includes concerns individual commissioners have about providers from whom they do not commission services, but with whom they interact (for example, clinical commissioning groups and primary care providers). The National Quality Board is currently conducting a review of how the Quality Surveillance Group network is operating, and what support it needs to be as effective as possible. It will publish revised guidance and support materials by the end of 2013 to support all Quality Surveillance Groups in reaching their full potential.

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 not accepted · 27 Feb 2026

This recommendation was not accepted by the Government.

NHS controlled providers are overseen either under the ‘NHS oversight framework’ for NHS trusts and foundation trusts (or successor framework) or the ‘risk assessment framework and reporting manual for independent sector providers of NHS services’.

Please see response to recommendation 28 for information on the NHS Oversight Framework and approach to special measures.

The NHS Standard Contract includes provisions for service suspension or contract termination in the event that a provider is providing unsafe or consistently low-quality services. Alternatively, the commissioner could agree implementation of an Immediate Action Plan or Remedial Action plan. The commissioner can also consider suspending services in which case the joint working protocol for closing services at short notice will apply.

Further the quality groups and Boards referred to above would ensure any safety matters are escalated by commissioners and regulators and considered as a 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 “Not accepted”. Table row: section 18.2 No. 137, PDF page 490.

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

Revised provisions relating to commissioners’ rights to suspend the provision of services were published in December 2013 as part of the NHS Standard Contract for 2014-15.

In March 2014 the National Quality Board published new guidance to support and share good practice amongst Quality Surveillance Groups as they develop. A Quality Dashboard supports Quality Surveillance Groups in analysing data on quality. The indicators within it have been aligned to those used by the Care Quality Commission in their Intelligent Monitoring System.

NHS England, Monitor, the Care Quality Commission and the NHS Trust Development Agency plan to develop a common dataset for quality for use by commissioners and regulators as soon as possible.

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 · 27 Feb 2026

This recommendation was not accepted by the Government.

In the January 2014 Hard Truths report, the Government said that the respective roles of commissioners and regulators in their relationships with providers were different and had to be distinct. While the NHS Standard Contract enabled commissioners to intervene where substandard or unsafe services were being provided, and in extreme circumstances suspend services, enforcement action was properly the role of the regulator. If commissioners have concerns about whether providers are meeting the essential standards of quality and safety, Quality Surveillance Groups would be one of the mechanisms through which they could raise concerns with the Care Quality Commission.

In the February 2015 Culture Change report, the Government said that revised provisions relating to commissioners’ rights to suspend the provision of services were included in the NHS Standard Contract for 2014- 15.

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

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 dated April 2025, published 27 February 2026). 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 18.2 No. 137, PDF page 490.

Earlier findings (1)

●Thirlwall Inquiry legal team · 15 May 2024

This recommendation was not accepted by the Government.

In the January 2014 Hard Truths report, the Government said that the respective roles of commissioners and regulators in their relationships with providers were different and had to be distinct. While the NHS Standard Contract enabled commissioners to intervene where substandard or unsafe services were being provided, and in extreme circumstances suspend services, enforcement action was properly the role of the regulator. If commissioners have concerns about whether providers are meeting the essential standards of quality and safety, Quality Surveillance Groups would be one of the mechanisms through which they could raise concerns with the Care Quality Commission.

In the February 2015 Culture Change report, the Government said that revised provisions relating to commissioners’ rights to suspend the provision of services were included in the NHS Standard Contract for 2014-15.

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. 137, PDF page 456-457.

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.