F274

Information to coroners

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

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 (Jan 2016)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

There is an urgent need for unequivocal guidance to be given to trusts and their legal advisers and those handling disclosure of information to coroners, patients and families, as to the priority to be given to openness over any perceived material interest.

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 Inquiry asked for guidance ensuring openness takes priority when disclosing information to coroners. In commentary of September 2024, published in February 2026, the Department of Health and Social Care and National Health Service (NHS) England stated that medical examiners had been introduced under a statutory duty of candour and favoured openness with bereaved families, though guidance for trusts and legal advisers on disclosure to coroners was not described (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). In May 2024, the Thirlwall Inquiry legal team found that the government accepted the recommendation but had not provided details about what guidance was given (The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team, May 2024). Earlier, in January 2016, Parliamentary Under-Secretary Ben Gummer reported that the 2015 NHS Serious Incident Framework provided advice on sharing information with coroners, patients, and families (Ben Gummer, Jan 2016).

AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 5 Oct 2026.

About this summary
This recommendation asks for cultural or behavioural change, which is difficult to verify from published sources alone. The record above reflects policy commitments rather than measured outcomes.

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 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 states that, ‘It is an offence for a person to do anything that is intended to have the effect of (a) distorting or otherwise altering any evidence, document or other things that is given, produced or provided for the purpose of an investigation … (b) preventing any evidence, document or other thing from being given produced or provided for the purposes of such an investigation or to do anything that the person knows or believes is likely to have that effect’.
Intentionally suppressing, concealing, altering or destroying a relevant document, except under specific circumstances, is an offence that may result in a fine and/or imprisonment.

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

All medical practitioners must adhere to the GMC Good medical practice and to applicable information governance law and policies. It is not anticipated that such requirements will impede medical examiners passing on feedback and referring concerns as appropriate, but if in doubt in a given case, advice should be sought (for example, from the appointing NHS body’s Caldicott Guardian) where appropriate.

Medical examiners have now been introduced as set out in Recommendation 45. The National Medical Examiner favours an assumption of transparency and openness to empower bereaved families. When a bereaved person who spoke with the medical examiner office about causes of death makes a reasonable request to see records of medical examiner scrutiny, these records should be shared where possible.

Medical Examiners are subject to statutory Duty of Candour as set out in Recommendation 21.

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. 274, PDF page 570-571.

●Department of Health and Social Care says in progress · 18 Jan 2016

Recommendation 274 was in line with the government’s commitment to greater openness and transparency across the National Health Service, particularly when things go wrong.

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 gives coroners powers to require a person or organisation in England and Wales to provide evidence and to require a witness in England and Wales to give evidence at an inquest. The 2009 Act makes it, “an offence for a person to do anything that is intended to have the effect of (a) distorting or otherwise altering any evidence, document or other things that is given, produced or provided for the purpose of an investigation…. (b) preventing any evidence, document or other thing from being given produced or provided for the purposes of such an investigation or to do anything that the person knows or believes is likely to have that effect.” This offence is limited to actions where there is “intention” to distort or alter evidence, and is punishable by a fine and / or imprisonment. The Ministry of Justice is currently conducting a post-implementation review of the 2013 coroner reforms in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which includes the reforms’ provisions on disclosure of information. The call for evidence and survey element of the review finished at the end of 2015, and the Ministry of Justice is now considering the responses received. The Department of Health understands that it hopes to publish a response document in the spring.

In response to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry the Government introduced a statutory duty of candour which came into force on 27 November 2014 for NHS Trusts, Foundation Trusts and some special health authorities that provide care and treatment to people that is regulated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and for all other providers registered with CQC on 1 April 2015. The statutory duty of candour applies to organisations, rather than to individual members of staff. However, it is designed to foster an open culture throughout the organisation, and providers are accountable to CQC for meeting the duty of candour. CQC are able to take enforcement action against the provider, and in certain circumstances its board and senior management, where breaches of the duty of candour have been found. Providers of care will therefore be expected to implement the new duty of candour through staff across their organisations - including educating, training and, if needs be, disciplining their staff appropriately.

In addition, The NHS Serious Incident Framework published in 2015 provides advice on provision of information regarding serious incidents to coroners, patients and their families. It is available at

https://www.england.nhs.uk/patientsafety/serious-incident/

CQC will look at how safe care is for patients as part of the inspection of NHS Trusts.

From: Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry (written question UIN 22149), Ben Gummer, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health

Earlier statements on delivery (0)

●Department of Health and Social Care · 11 Feb 2015

No further update is required. Please see response to the recommendation in Hard Truths

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.

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 did not provide any details of what, if any guidance, was given

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. 274, PDF page 525.

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.