Home / Inquiries / Mid Staffs Inquiry / F222
← F221 F223 →
F222

General Medical Council Systemic investigation where needed

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

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

DeliveryDHSC and NHS England say in progress (Feb 2026)Department of Health and Social Care says in progress (Feb 2015)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

The General Medical Council should have a clear policy about the circumstances in which a generic complaint or report ought to be made to it, enabling a more proactive approach to monitoring fitness to practise.

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

DHSC and NHS England reported in September 2024 that the General Medical Council publishes information on how complaints and referrals are managed, which includes explaining appropriate channels for raising concerns and signposting complainants to the appropriate regulator (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). In an assessment published in February 2026, the Thirlwall Inquiry legal team noted that the recommendation had been accepted but found that it remained unclear whether any clear policy was developed (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 · 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.
The General Medical Council has made it clear that it recognises the need to contribute to the identification and in some cases the investigation of generic concerns, building on its progress in recent years to become a more proactive and collaborative regulator. This includes signposting complainants to the appropriate regulator if their concerns are not for the General Medical Council; making referrals to systems or other professional regulators; investigating concerns arising from the media (including those which do not specifically name a doctor) and sharing information with and participating in regional quality surveillance groups and risk summits. In light of this recommendation, the General Medical Council will undertake to clarify in what circumstances it has an interest in generic reports or complaints and continue to build its relationship with the Care Quality Commission to ensure appropriate leadership in relation to generic concerns. We will continue to work with the General Medical Council and other organisations to ensure that communication and effective sharing of information between regulators of all kinds works well and in the interests of patients.

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 say in progress · 27 Feb 2026

The GMC publish information on how complaints and referrals are managed. This includes information on the appropriate channels for raising a complaint about the service received and signposting complainants to the appropriate regulator.

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. 222, PDF page 539-540.

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

Direct interventions by the General Medical Council will be confined to matters within its regulatory remit in the quality of education and of individual practitioners. It contributes to the identification and investigation of systemic or generic concerns outside its direct remit by signposting complainants to the appropriate regulator, making referrals to systems or other professional regulators, investigating concerns that are raised in the media and sharing information with and participating in Regional Quality Surveillance Groups and Risk Summits. The General Medical Council has established an internal Patient Safety Intelligence Forum to coordinate information that may demonstrate concerns about patient safety or medical practice and ensure the appropriate operational and policy response across its functions relevant to operational or thematic risk. This Forum will continue to develop throughout 2014 and 2015 in parallel with the development of the General Medical Council’s enhanced data strategy.

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 the General Medical Council, 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 accepted by the Government.

The General Medical Council said in its October 2014 update that it contributed to the identification and investigation of systemic or generic concerns by: sign posting complaints to the appropraite regulator if their concerns were not for the General Medical Council, making referrals to systems or other professional regulators, investigating concerns that were raised in the media and sharing information with and participating in Regional Quality Surveillance Group and Risk Assessment.

In the February 2015 Culture Change report, the Government said that direct intervention by the General Medical Council would be confined to matters within its regulatory remit in the quality of education and of individual practitioners.

It is unclear whether any clear policy was developed.

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. 222, PDF page 539-540.

Earlier findings (1)

●Thirlwall Inquiry legal team · 15 May 2024

This recommendation was accepted by the Government.

The General Medical Council said in its October 2014 update that it contributed to the identification and investigation of systemic or generic concerns by: sign posting complaints to the appropriate regulator if their concerns were not for the General Medical Council, making referrals to systems or other professional regulators, investigating concerns that were raised in the media and sharing information with and participating in Regional Quality Surveillance Group and Risk Assessment.

In the February 2015 Culture Change report, the Government said that direct intervention by the General Medical Council would be confined to matters within its regulatory remit in the quality of education and of individual practitioners.

It is unclear whether any clear policy was developed.

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. 222, PDF page 499-500.

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.