Home / Inquiries / Mid Staffs Inquiry / F234
← F233 F235 →
F234

Cooperation with the Care Quality Commission

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

Both the General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council must develop closer working relationships with the Care Quality Commission – in many cases there should be joint working to minimise the time taken to resolve issues and maximise the protection afforded to the public.

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 provided in September 2024, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England referred to their response on the Joint Strategic Oversight Group for details on joint working (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). In its review published in February 2026, the Thirlwall Inquiry legal team noted that the General Medical Council had developed an operational protocol with the Care Quality Commission, and that the Nursing and Midwifery Council had renewed its memorandum of understanding supported by a joint working protocol (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 been working closely with the Care Quality Commission to build on its Memorandum of Understanding. Similar close joint working has also started with the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
The Care Quality Commission and General Medical Council have already reviewed their joint working arrangements to improve information sharing, allow evaluation and tracking of how information is used, and plan coordinated or joint inspections and visits. These arrangements were published in July 2013.
The Care Quality Commission and the Nursing and Midwifery Council began a similar review during September 2013, to develop a similar joint working protocol by December 2013.
The Care Quality Commission issued Raising Standards, putting people first – our strategy 2013–16 in February 2013. This set out the Care Quality Commission’s plans for the next three years and made clear that it would work more closely with its partners in the health and social care system to improve the quality and safety of care and co-ordinate work better, including working with other regulators and organisations that manage and oversee the health and social care system to identify and act on the public’s concerns. This was reinforced in June 2013, when the Care Quality Commission issued its consultation document ‘A new start – Consultation on changes to the way Care Quality Commission regulates, inspects and monitors care’. This recognised the need to coordinate with existing visits and inspections to minimise duplication and overlap, for example through joint visits and re-use of each other’s findings.

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

Please see our response to recommendation 18 for detail on the Joint Strategic Oversight Group.

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. 234, PDF page 547.

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

The Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Care Quality Commission renewed their Memorandum of Understanding in December 2013; this is now supported by a clear joint working protocol for staff of both organisations. The Nursing and Midwifery Council is conducting an internal quality assurance exercise looking at activity under the new Memorandum of Understanding and the learning will inform next steps for improving partnership working.

The General Medical Council has developed an Operational Protocol with the Care Quality Commission and both organisations will agree a joint approach to its evaluation. An interim evaluation report will be published in March 2015. Initial feedback from staff in both organisations indicates that the Protocol is working well.

Between 09 April and 04 June 2014, the Care Quality Commission consulted on how it planned to change the way it regulates, inspects and rate care services. The changes include things like:
• what the Care Quality Commission look at on an inspection.
• how the Care Quality Commission judge what 'good' care looks like.
• how the Care Quality Commission rate care services to help people judge and choose care if they want to.
• how the Care Quality Commission use information to help decide when and where to inspect.

The Care Quality Commission has also published consultation handbooks for seven types of provider (see recommendation 14). In July 2014, the Care Quality Commission published a consultation on guidance for providers meeting the fundamental standards and on the Care Quality Commission’s enforcement powers. The consultation closed on 17 October 2014. The Care Quality Commission is considering the responses and will publish its new guidance prior to April 2015.

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

Accepted by the Government.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Care Quality Commission renewed their memorandum of understanding in December 2013, supporting by joint working protocol.

The General Medical Council also developed an operational protocol with the are Quality Commission.

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. 234, PDF page 547.

Earlier findings (1)

●Thirlwall Inquiry legal team · 15 May 2024

Accepted by the Government.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Care Quality Commission renewed their memorandum of understanding in December 2013, supporting by joint working protocol.

The General Medical Council also developed an operational protocol with the Care Quality Commission.

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. 234, PDF page 506.

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.