F262

Enhancing the use analysis and dissemination of healthcare information

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

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

All healthcare provider organisations, in conjunction with their healthcare professionals, should develop and maintain systems which give them: Effective real-time information on the performance of each of their services against patient safety and minimum quality standards; Effective real-time information of the performance of each of their consultants and specialist teams in relation to mortality, morbidity, outcome and patient satisfaction. In doing so, they should have regard, in relation to each service, to best practice for information management of that service as evidenced by recommendations of the Information Centre, and recommendations of specialist organisations such as the medical Royal Colleges. The information derived from such systems should, to the extent practicable, be published and in any event made available in full to commissioners and regulators, on request, and with appropriate explanation, and to the extent that is relevant to individual patients, to assist in choice of treatment.

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

The Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England stated in September 2024 that implementation was in progress, pointing to the Federated Data Platform, the Consultant Outcomes Publication, and the National Consultant Information Programme portal for consultant-level data (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). Earlier, in May 2024, the Thirlwall Inquiry legal team noted that the government had accepted the recommendation to connect existing systems using national standards rather than imposing central requirements on local providers (The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team, May 2024).

AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 26 Sep 2026.

About this summary
This recommendation applies across many organisations. The record above reflects central policy activity; adoption in individual organisations may vary.

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.
Timely, accurate and robust data should be used by every provider to determine the quality of the services that they provide and identify whether there are any risks to patient safety. Wherever possible, such information should be available to commissioners, regulators and the public to drive improvement and support choice.
To support this, for example:
• the NHS Leadership Academy in The Healthy NHS Board (NHS Leadership Academy, 2013) set out clear roles for regarding the use of information across the board. It stated that Executive Directors should take ‘… principal responsibility for providing accurate, timely and clear information to the board’. (see recommendation 245); and
• data on providers’ performance is becoming increasing available including data at specialty level (see recommendation 264) and the provider’s compliance with quality standards (see recommendation 246 regarding quality accounts).
However, rather than determining how local providers should meet their information needs centrally, the Department of Health is committed to connecting existing systems, see Liberating the NHS: An Information Revolution (Department of Health, July 2010) and The Power of Information133 (Department of Health, May 2012). As such, providers will set specific requirements locally but based on national standards to ensure that information can be shared across the system.
Some national standards have already been set, including the use of the NHS number, and further standards, such as interoperability of patient records, will be outlined in NHS England’s Technology Strategy, which is due to be published in early 2014.

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 response to recommendation 244 for information on the Federated Data Platform.

Consultant Outcomes Publication

The Consultant Outcomes Publication (COP) was introduced to publish quality measures at the level of individual consultant doctor using National Clinical Audit and administrative data. Consultant Outcomes Publication began with 10 National Clinical Audits in 2013.

National Consultant Information Programme (NCIP)

The NCIP portal is a free data platform that allows consultants to review their own data: improving clinical quality, patient safety and supporting career development. It provides consultants with data covering their NHS practice wherever it is performed with high-quality, specialty-specific dashboards at patient level

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 “In progress”. Table row: section 18.2 No. 262, PDF page 565-566.

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

NHS England plans to publish consultant-level outcomes data from all appropriate NHS funded national clinical audits before 2020. Consultant Outcomes Publication began with ten national clinical audits in June 2013 which were also made available through the NHS Choices Website. Consultant data for neurosurgery and upper gastro-intestinal has also now been published. NHS England will improve the way in which data is published and has supported the development of patient-friendly guidance which has been issued to professional societies. This outlines the indicators that must be included in consultant level reporting such as patient involvement in publication and the linking of results for the department to an individual’s work at the trusts in which they practice.

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 healthcare providers, 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 · 15 May 2024

This recommendation was accepted by the Government. The Government responded by stating that, rather than determining how local providers should meet their information needs centrally, the Department of Health would commit to connecting existing systems. Providers would set specific requirements locally but based on national standards to ensure that information could be shared across the 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. 262, PDF page 519-520.

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.