AFA-6 Response Pending

Medical leadership and doctors in difficulty

Urology Services Inquiry · Urology Services Inquiry Report · Issued 24 June 2026 · Addressed to: Department of Health NI

Source — verbatim from the inquiry

Inquiry recommendation

The Inquiry recommends that:
• There must be sustained investment in leadership development for doctors at all career stages. Improvements discussed in the Medical Management and Leadership chapter should continue. The Department should establish a dedicated regional programme to strengthen medical leadership and management. This programme should focus on all aspects of medical management and leadership; aid continuous development and provide opportunities for ongoing challenge.
• The Trust should continue to develop its medical managers and leaders ensuring that roles and responsibilities are clear and there is sufficient time allocated to perform the roles.
• Within the Trust there must also be access to ongoing training and development for all medical leaders. Leadership programmes for all doctors, medical managers and clinical leaders must be developed and sustained. Such programmes should be clearly linked to wider organisational development programmes to foster shared decision making across professional boundaries.
• The work done in relation to improving understanding of the different approaches to managing doctors in difficulty and the wider training on the MHPS framework put in place at the Trust should continue.
• While the MHPS framework exists in its current form, the Trust should consolidate the work undertaken to date and develop a protocol to address the recommendations listed at the end of the MHPS chapter.
• The work relating to redevelopment of the MHPS framework in Northern Ireland carried out by the Department should continue at pace as it is long overdue. The Inquiry endorses the recommendations made by the Department's review group, advocating a completely new approach to replace the MHPS framework.
• The Department should continue to invest in and enhance regional working groups for Medical Directors and other senior medical managers. These groups should provide expertise in relation to mechanisms for dealing with doctors in difficulty and difficult doctors. The groups can share case studies and best practice. The remit of these groups should include an emphasis on the use of external resources such as Practitioner Performance Advice (PPA), as well as how to develop and use robust internal processes. Such processes must encompass the need for any necessary support for practitioners, integrate with and link to all current processes that relate to how concerns about medical staff are addressed.
• All doctors and doctors in training need to be made aware of current processes and receive mandatory training in this area.
• Doctors must be involved in the management and leadership of services and in strategic planning for the future. There must be targeted funding and oversight from the Department. In the interim the Trust must ensure its medical staff is involved in the management and leadership of its services.

Urology Services Inquiry, Urology Services Inquiry Report · 24 Jun 2026 Source PDF →

Response — verbatim from government

No formal government response recorded

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

Evidence trail — what's actually happened since

  • 24 Jun 2026 Report published 24 June 2026. No formal government response published. The Health Minister welcomed the report on the day of publication. The Inquiry asks the Southern Health and Social Care Trust and the Department of Health to commit to act on the recommendations (paragraph 69).

Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.

How this page is built

Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.

This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.