BRIS-148

Implement a single, trusted system for collecting clinical and administrative data

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

Government responseNot tracked (historical inquiry)

DeliveryDHSC and NHS England say partially delivered (Feb 2026)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

The current ‘dual’ system of collecting data in the NHS in separate administrative and multiple clinical systems is wasteful and anachronistic. A single approach to collecting data should be adopted, which clinicians can trust and use and from which information about both clinical and administrative performance can be derived.

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 partially delivered · 27 Feb 2026

Electronic patient Records (EPR) have been implemented and are now available in 90% of Trusts.

EPR systems provide a digital platform that brings together all patient information, from medical history to results of investigations and medications prescribed.

In 2022, NHS England merged with NHS Digital to create a single body to put data and digital technology at the heart of transforming the NHS. The merger of the bodies has enabled the development of a Federated Data Platform to bring operational data together to help staff access the information they need to carry out their work effectively. This could be bed data, the size of waiting lists and the availability of medical supplies. It will make it easier for health and care organisations to work together, compare data and analyse it at different geographic, demographic and organisational levels.

The NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP) is software that will enable NHS organisations to bring together operational data – currently stored in separate systems –to support staff to access the information they need in one safe and secure environment.

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 “Partially Implemented –Ongoing”. Table row: section 6.2 No. 148, PDF page 137.

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 those responsible for the separate administrative and clinical audit databases were working together to develop an approach which would avoid duplication.

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. 148, PDF page 120.

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.