BRIS-24

Treat patient consent as an ongoing process, not a single signature event

Bristol Heart Inquiry · Bristol Heart Inquiry — Final Report · Issued 18 July 2001

Government responseNot tracked (historical inquiry)

DeliveryDHSC and NHS England say in progress (Feb 2026)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

The process of informing the patient, and obtaining consent to a course of treatment, should be regarded as a process and not a one-off event consisting of obtaining a patient’s signature on a form.

Bristol Heart Inquiry, Bristol Heart Inquiry — Final Report · 18 Jul 2001 Source PDF →

Government response

●No formal government response recorded

The Index has not yet recorded a verbatim government response to this recommendation.

Delivery

●DHSC and NHS England say in progress · 27 Feb 2026

Please see our response to Recommendations 1 (patient-centred care), 2 (shared decision-making) and 23 (consent) for current practice.

Furthermore, informed consent is established practice, with multiple pieces of guidance in place including that published by professional regulators, NICE as well as NHS England. NHS England has implemented a two-stage shared decision-making process, which includes a period of reflection for patients when deciding on treatment and giving consent.

NHS England has published 17 decision support tools. These allow patients to be provided with more information on their treatment options as well as supporting shared decision-making between the patient / family / carer and a clinician. The aim is to allow time to reflect upon the proposed treatment.

Information about consent to treatment is also available on the NHS website.

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 6.2 No. 24, PDF page 81.

What other bodies have found

In their own words. These do not change the delivery statement above.

●Thirlwall Inquiry legal team · 15 May 2024

The Government agreed with this recommendation.

In its January 2002 response, the Department of Health said that its Reference Guide and model consent policy both made clear that consent was a process, with the signing of a consent form only the end point.

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 6.2 No. 24, PDF page 80.

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.