BRIS-171

Designate executive board member to protect children's interests in trusts

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

All trusts which provide services for children as well as adults, should have a designated executive member of the board whose responsibility it is to ensure that the interests of children are protected and that they are cared for in a paediatric environment by paediatrically trained staff.

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

Trusts were required to designate a non-executive director champion for children and young people’s services. In 2021 this approach was revised in accordance with guidance.

As set out in our response to Recommendation 170 above, ICBs are required to have an executive lead role with responsibility for children.

On 24 June 2024, NHS England published its 4th edition of the NHS England Safeguarding accountability and assurance framework, which strengthens the NHS commitment to promote the safety, protection and welfare of children, young people and adults.

It states that all providers, including provider collaboratives, are required to have arrangements in place to safeguard and promote the welfare of children at risk of harm and abuse in every service that they deliver.

Providers must demonstrate that safeguarding is embedded at every level in their organisation, with effective governance processes evident. Providers must also assure themselves, the regulators, and their commissioners that safeguarding arrangements are robust and are working.

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. 171, PDF page 147-148.

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 in principle with this recommendation.

In its January 2002 response, the Department of Health said it would consider how best to take this forward as existing NHS structures were replaced.

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. 171, PDF page 127.

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.