F253

Access to quality and risk profile

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

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

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

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

The information behind the quality and risk profile – as well as the ratings and methodology – should be placed in the public domain, as far as is consistent with maintaining any legitimate confidentiality of such information, together with appropriate explanations to enable the public to understand the limitations of this tool.

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In September 2024, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England stated that the recommendation had been superseded, noting that the Care Quality Commission had phased in a new single assessment framework since November 2023 and publishes inspection reports online (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). In February 2026, the Thirlwall Inquiry legal team noted the government's acceptance of the recommendation and recounted previous updates on risk monitoring tools and published data packs (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 Care Quality Commission is developing a new approach to inspection, and has started routinely publishing for the NHS the information that it uses to focus its inspections. This information is based on monitoring a set of indicators of risk, which have replaced the former quality and risk profile approach. As the Care Quality Commission carries out each inspection under its new approach, it will publish a data pack at the same time as publishing the inspection report. A data pack is a detailed analysis of key information that the Care Quality Commission holds about a provider, including its performance on risk indicators, other sources of data, and qualitative information such as views of local organisations and feedback from patients.
In June 2013, the Care Quality Commission issued A new start – Consultation on changes to the way Care Quality Commission regulates, inspects and monitors care. This set out the new approach to inspecting hospitals, and sought views on an annex with the full set of indicators that the Care Quality Commission proposed for monitoring hospitals, to identify potential risks and the priority order for inspection. On 24 October 2013 the Care Quality Commission published a full analysis of all its monitoring indicators for all acute hospital trusts, showing their performance against the indicators. The results of this intelligent monitoring work group, the 161 acute NHS trusts into six bands based on the risk that people may not be receiving safe, effective, high quality care – with band 1 being the highest risk and band 6 the lowest. The Care Quality Commission has undertaken to update and publish these analyses quarterly, with explanation of what should and should not be read into them. *Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

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 state no delivery position · 27 Feb 2026

CQC implemented an inspection framework post-Francis. Since the recommendation was made, a new single assessment framework (SAF) has been rolled out in a phased manner, since November 2023. CQC publish their inspection reports online.

Please see response to recommendation 55 for information on the Dash review.

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 “Superseded”. Table row: section 18.2 No. 253, PDF page 560.

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

The Care Quality Commission has replaced its Quality and Risk Profile with a system of Intelligent Monitoring to help decide when, where and what to inspect. This draws information and data from a range of sources to identify providers and services where there may be a greater risk of providing poor care. The evidence from the Intelligent Monitoring system is used to prioritise which providers will be inspected and the lines of enquiry during an investigation. The system triggers a response, for example, where there are a statistically significant number of severe harm incidents or avoidable deaths at a provider. “Never events” trigger an automated elevated risk in Intelligent Monitoring which inspectors follow up individually. The data it looks at includes information from:

• Staff
• Patient surveys
• Mortality rates
• Hospital performance information such as waiting times and infection rates In October 2013, the Care Quality Commission began a pilot of its Intelligent Monitoring programme for acute and specialist NHS trusts. The pilot looked at more than 150 different sets of data (indicators), which related to the five key questions the Care Quality Commission asks of all services – are they safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led? Using this data, the Care Quality Commission grouped all acute NHS trusts into six priority bands for inspection. In March and July 2014, the Care Quality Commission updated its surveillance model for acute and specialist NHS trusts.

In November 2014, the Care Quality Commission published Mental Health intelligent monitoring reports, which display the results of its analysis of Tier 1 indicators for all Mental Health NHS trusts. Each trust will receive an individual report and banding, similar to those for acute hospitals. The bandings will range from one to four.

In November 2014 the Care Quality Commission published its first round of Intelligent Monitoring for GPs

The Care Quality Commission has always used important information in statutory notifications as an indicator of quality and safety in the adult social care sector, alongside other information about safeguarding alerts and information provided by others such as people who use services, staff and the public. The Care Quality Commission does not have a lot of quantitative data consistently collected across the sector but it is taking steps to improve this. With a new, more thorough model, the Care Quality Commission intends to use all the available information to check whether there is a risk that services do not provide either safe or quality care.

Draft Intelligent Monitoring models for the Adult Social Care sector have been in place since October 2014, with separate sets of indicators for residential, community and hospice services. the Care Quality Commission will continue to develop these models with providers and stakeholders to develop a more robust Intelligent Monitoring system within Adult Social Care during 2015/16 and beyond

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 Care Quality Commission, 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.

In the January 2014 Hard Truths report, the Government said that the Care Quality Commission’s new inspection approach would involve publishing a data pack at that same time as publishing its inspection report, containing analysis of the key information which the Care Quality Commission holds about a provider, including its performance on risk indicators. In June 2013, the Care Quality Commission published an analysis of its monitoring indicators for all acute hospital trusts, showing their performance against the indicators.

In the February 2015 Culture Chage Report, the Government referred to the Care Quality Commission’s Intelligent Monitoring System.

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. 253, PDF page 560.

Earlier findings (1)

●Thirlwall Inquiry legal team · 15 May 2024

This recommendation was accepted by the Government.

In the January 2014 Hard Truths report, the Government said that the Care Quality Commission’s new inspection approach would involve publishing a data pack at that same time as publishing its inspection report, containing analysis of the key information which the Care Quality Commission holds about a provider, including its performance on risk indicators. In June 2013, the Care Quality Commission published an analysis of its monitoring indicators for all acute hospital trusts, showing their performance against the indicators. In the February 2015 Culture Change Report, the Government referred to the Care Quality Commission’s Intelligent Monitoring System.

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. 253, PDF page 515-516.

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.