Coordination of local public scrutiny bodies
Mid Staffs Inquiry · Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry · Issued 6 February 2013 · Addressed to: Department of Health and Social Care
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
Guidance should be given to promote the coordination and cooperation between Local Healthwatch, Health and Wellbeing Boards, and local government scrutiny committees.
Mid Staffs Inquiry, Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry · 6 Feb 2013 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:
- The Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/218) set out the governance arrangements for Health and Wellbeing Boards and health scrutiny committees, providing a regulatory framework for their operation and interaction with other local health and care bodies (SI 2013/218).
- Local Healthwatch organisations have a statutory right to a seat on their local Health and Wellbeing Board under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (section 194). This ensures that the patient and public voice represented by Local Healthwatch is directly integrated into the strategic health and care planning carried out by HWBs (Health and Social Care Act 2012, s.194).
- The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) has published guidance on health scrutiny, including advice on how scrutiny committees should coordinate with Local Healthwatch and Health and Wellbeing Boards. CfGS guidance is referenced in DHSC's statutory guidance on health scrutiny (CfGS health scrutiny guidance).
Response — verbatim from government
●Department of Health and Social Care
The government published "Hard Truths: the Journey to Putting Patients First" (Cm 8777) on 19 November 2013, responding to all 290 recommendations of the Francis Report. This followed an initial response "Patients First and Foremost" in March 2013. Key reforms included a new Chief Inspector of Hospitals, strengthened Care Quality Commission inspection regime, a statutory duty of candour, and the fit and proper person test for NHS directors. Volume 2 (Cm 8754) contains the government's detailed responses to each of the 290 recommendations. See: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7cd486ed915d63cc65d167/34658_Cm_8777_Vol_1_accessible.pdf
Department of Health and Social Care · 19 Nov 2013 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 6 Feb 2023 · Academic Review - Ten Years After Francis Research published 2023 marking ten years since the Francis Report found mixed results. Structural and legislative changes largely delivered (duty of candour, FPPR, CQC overhaul, revalidation, Freedom to Speak Up Guardians). However, cultural change not fully embedded; understaffing, fear of speaking up, and poor complaint handling persist in parts of the NHS. View source → Reasonable Progress
- 11 Feb 2015 · UK Government - Culture Change in the NHS Government published "Culture Change in the NHS" (Cm 9009) reporting progress on all 290 recommendations. Key achievements: 19 hospitals placed in special measures; those trusts recruited 109 additional doctors and 1,805 additional nurses; 129 board-level changes made; excess avoidable deaths fell by 450 in less than a year. View source → Good Progress
- 19 Nov 2013 · UK Government - Hard Truths Vol 1 & 2 Government published "Hard Truths: The Journey to Putting Patients First" (Cm 8777) in two volumes. Vol 1 set out new actions; Vol 2 provided detailed response to each of the 290 recommendations. Approximately 204 of 290 recommendations were fully accepted. View source → Good Progress
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.