Improving and assuring accuracy
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
There is a demonstrable need for an accreditation system to be available for healthcare-relevant statistical methodologies. The power to create an accreditation scheme has been included in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it should be used as soon as practicable.
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:
- Section 280 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 inserted powers for the Secretary of State to establish an accreditation scheme for healthcare information methodology, as Francis noted. However, these powers have not been exercised to create a formal accreditation scheme for statistical methodologies.
- The Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) provides independent review and accreditation of official statistics, and has accredited SHMI as meeting the Code of Practice for Statistics. This provides quality assurance for individual statistical products but is not equivalent to the broader healthcare-specific methodological accreditation scheme Francis envisaged.
- Individual statistical methodologies are reviewed through academic peer review, expert advisory groups, and public consultation (for example, SHMI methodology is reviewed by an expert advisory group). But there is no systematic accreditation system covering all healthcare-relevant statistical methodologies.
- The power to create an accreditation scheme exists in legislation but has not been used. This recommendation remains partially fulfilled through OSR's existing official statistics accreditation framework, but the healthcare-specific methodological accreditation scheme Francis recommended has not been established.
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.