BRIS-83

Provide incentives, funding, and time for healthcare professional continuous professional development

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

Trusts and primary care trusts should provide incentives to encourage healthcare professionals to maintain and develop their skills. The contract (or, in the case of GPs, other relevant mechanism) between the trust and the healthcare professional should provide for the funding of CPD and should stipulate the time which the trust will make available for CPD.

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 recommendation 82 above for examples of the CPD requirements for doctors and nurses.

NHS Workforce Plan includes a provision on continuous learning (para 30) and national funding support for certain types of continuing professional development. The Continuing Professional Development: Guidance for all Doctors states that employers and contractors of doctors’ services are responsible for making sure their workforce is competent, up to date and able to meet the needs of the service. Such employers and contractors should maintain and develop the skills of all of their medical staff whether they are consultants, staff grade, specialty or associate specialist (SAS) doctors, sessional general practitioners (GPs), locum doctors or trainees. Such employers and contractors should also facilitate access to the resources (including the time to learn) that will support this.

The NHS Terms and Conditions of Service (under which most nurses and allied health professional are employed) sets out specific guidance for professional development.

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. 83, PDF page 108-109.

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 £20m was being invested to support implementation of appraisal and better access to continuing professional development. The Department said it was clear that all healthcare professionals should have a personal development plan; in the case of doctors such a plan would be required as part of appraisal.

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. 83, PDF page 99.

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.