Compensation Scheme
Recommendation
My principal recommendation remains that a compensation scheme should be set up now
Published evidence summary
According to the Gov.uk response (14 May 2025) and UK Parliament (31 Dec 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation in full, establishing the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) through the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. According to UK Parliament (31 Dec 2025), three sets of scheme regulations came into force in August 2024, March 2025, and December 2025, enabling the scheme to become operational, with first payments made in December 2024. As of January 2026, the IBCA Community Update (15 Jan 2026) stated that £1.89 billion has been paid to 2,861 people, with £11.8 billion committed in the October 2024 Budget according to the IBCA Independent Review (28 Oct 2025).
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
UK and Devolved Memorials
Recommendation
A permanent memorial be established in the UK and consideration be given to memorials in each of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The nature of the memorial(s), their design and location should be determined by a memorial committee consisting of …
Read more
A permanent memorial be established in the UK and consideration be given to memorials in each of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The nature of the memorial(s), their design and location should be determined by a memorial committee consisting of people infected and affected and representatives of the governments. It should be funded by the UK government.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the Govt response (2025-05-14; Infected Blood Memorial Committee, 2025-12-17), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, reiterating apologies and committing to a national memorial and memorials in devolved nations. According to the Govt response (2025-05-14; Infected Blood Memorial Committee, 2025-12-17), an Infected Blood Memorial Committee was established, and a national remembrance service is planned for St Paul's Cathedral on 19 May 2026, and in Scotland, a public arts consultant has been engaged.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Treloar's School Memorial
Recommendation
A memorial be established at public expense, dedicated specifically to the children infected at Treloar’s school. The memorial should be such as is agreed with those who were pupils at Treloar’s.
Published evidence summary
According to the Govt response (2025-05-14; Infected Blood Memorial Committee, 2025-12-17), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, committing to a memorial specifically for the children infected at Treloar's school. According to the Govt response (2025-05-14; Infected Blood Memorial Committee, 2025-12-17), planning permission for the Treloar's memorial has been granted, and a bronze sculpture has been designed.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Community Support Events
Recommendation
There should be at least three events, approximately six months apart, drawing together those infected and affected, the nature and timing of which should be determined by a working party as described above, facilitated by some central funding.
Published evidence summary
According to the Govt response (2025-05-14; Infected Blood Memorial Committee, 2025-12-17), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, acknowledging the need for community support events. According to the Govt response (2025-05-14; Infected Blood Memorial Committee, 2025-12-17), a national remembrance service is planned for St Paul's Cathedral on 19 May 2026, which will draw together those infected and affected, and the establishment of the Infected Blood Memorial Committee may facilitate further events, but specific details on additional community support events are not yet available.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Medical Education - Curriculum
Recommendation
The General Medical Council, and NHS Education for Scotland, Health Education and Improvement Wales, Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency and NHS England, should take steps to ensure that those “lessons to be learned” which relate to clinical practice …
Read more
The General Medical Council, and NHS Education for Scotland, Health Education and Improvement Wales, Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency and NHS England, should take steps to ensure that those “lessons to be learned” which relate to clinical practice should be incorporated in every doctor’s training.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the UK Government's response, it accepted this recommendation, acknowledging the importance of the Inquiry's May 2024 report as a valuable resource for learning lessons in medical education. The government recognised the role of medical education bodies in ensuring patient safety is central to training (Govt response, 2025-05-14). However, the provided evidence does not detail specific curriculum changes made by the General Medical Council or devolved health education bodies.
GMC
(Primary)
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Medical Education - Training Materials
Recommendation
They should look favourably upon putting together a package of training materials, with excerpts from oral and written testimony, to underpin what can happen in healthcare, and must be avoided in future.
Published evidence summary
According to the Govt response (2025-05-14), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, acknowledging the importance of the Inquiry's May 2024 report for informing medical training. According to the Govt response (2025-05-14), the government recognised the role of medical education bodies in ensuring patient safety is central to training, but the provided evidence does not detail specific packages of training materials, including excerpts from testimony, that have been put together.
GMC
(Primary)
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Inquiry Website Preservation
Recommendation
The Inquiry website is maintained online
Published evidence summary
According to the Official government response, 21 July 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation to maintain the Inquiry website online, stating that it is standard practice for inquiry websites to be transferred to The National Archives (TNA) for preservation of the public record. According to the Official government response, 21 July 2025, this process typically involves some loss of search functionality. No specific update on the completion of this transfer has been identified since the government's response.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Duty of Candour - Northern Ireland
Recommendation
Duty of candour:
A statutory duty of candour in healthcare should be introduced in Northern Ireland.
Published evidence summary
According to the Official government response, 21 July 2025, the Northern Ireland Executive accepted the recommendation to introduce a statutory duty of candour in healthcare. According to the Official government response, 21 July 2025, Minister Mike Nesbitt committed to advancing proposals for an organisational duty of candour and considering an individual duty, referencing a March 2025 consultation and the UK-wide "Hillsborough Law" (Official government response, 21 July 2025). The Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26, known as the "Hillsborough Law," was introduced in September 2025, passed the House of Commons in January 2026, and is currently progressing through the House of Lords, creating a statutory duty of candour for public authorities with criminal sanctions (UK Parliament, 19 January 2026).
Northern Ireland Executive
(Primary)
View Details
Duty of Candour - Scotland and Wales Review
Recommendation
Duty of candour: The operation of the duties of candour in healthcare in Scotland and in Wales should be reviewed, as it is being in England, to assess how effective its operation has been in practice. Since the duty was …
Read more
Duty of candour:
The operation of the duties of candour in healthcare in Scotland and in Wales should be reviewed, as it is being in England, to assess how effective its operation has been in practice. Since the duty was introduced in 2023 in Wales, the review there need not be immediate, but should be no later than the end of 2026.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the Official government response (21 July 2025), the Scottish Government accepted the recommendation to review the operation of duties of candour in healthcare and its response detailed the existing organisational duty of candour provisions under the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Act 2016 and the Duty of Candour Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2018. However, according to the available evidence, it does not explicitly state that a review of the effectiveness of these duties in Scotland or Wales is currently underway or planned, as requested by the recommendation.
UK Government
(Primary)
Scottish Government
(Primary)
View Details
Duty of Candour - England Review
Recommendation
Duty of candour:
The review of the duty of candour currently under way in England should be completed as soon as practicable.
Published evidence summary
According to the official government response, the UK Government accepted the recommendation to complete the review of the duty of candour in England. A report on the findings of a call for evidence, which was issued by the Department of Health and Social Care in April 2024, was published on 26 November 2024 (Official government response, 21 July 2025). This report suggested that the duty of candour is functioning effectively.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Individual Duty of Candour for Leaders
Recommendation
Statutory duty of candour: The statutory duties of candour in England, Scotland, Wales (and Northern Ireland, when introduced) should be extended to cover those individuals in leadership positions in the National Health Service, in particular in executive positions and board …
Read more
Statutory duty of candour:
The statutory duties of candour in England, Scotland, Wales (and Northern Ireland, when introduced) should be extended to cover those individuals in leadership positions in the National Health Service, in particular in executive positions and board members.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the official government response, the UK Government accepted in principle the recommendation to extend statutory duties of candour to individuals in NHS leadership positions. The government committed to implementing professional standards for and regulating NHS managers, and a consultation on options for this regulation, including the establishment of a professional body, ran from 26 November 2024 to 18 February 2025 (Official government response, 21 July 2025). Additionally, the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26, which creates a statutory duty of candour for public authorities with criminal sanctions, passed the House of Commons in January 2026 and is progressing through the House of Lords (UK Parliament, 19 January 2026).
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Leadership Accountability for Safety
Recommendation
Statutory duty of candour: Individuals in leadership positions should be required by the terms of their appointment and by secondary legislation to record, consider and respond to any concern about the healthcare being provided, or the way it is being …
Read more
Statutory duty of candour:
Individuals in leadership positions should be required by the terms of their appointment and by secondary legislation to record, consider and respond to any concern about the healthcare being provided, or the way it is being provided, where there reasonably appears to be a risk that a patient might suffer harm, or has done so. Any person in authority to whom such a report is made should be personally accountable for a failure to consider it adequately.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the official government response, the UK Government accepted in principle the recommendation for individuals in leadership positions to be required to record, consider, and respond to patient safety concerns, while noting the complexity of implementation and enforcement (Official government response, 21 July 2025). The Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26, which creates a statutory duty of candour for public authorities with criminal sanctions, passed the House of Commons in January 2026 and is progressing through the House of Lords (UK Parliament, 19 January 2026). This Bill enhances accountability for public bodies, but specific details on how individual leaders are required by their terms of appointment or secondary legislation to meet these obligations have not been explicitly provided.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Organisational Culture Change
Recommendation
Cultural Change: That a culture of defensiveness, lack of openness, failure to be forthcoming, and being dismissive of concerns about patient safety be addressed both by taking the steps set out in (a) above, and also by making leaders accountable …
Read more
Cultural Change:
That a culture of defensiveness, lack of openness, failure to be forthcoming, and being dismissive of concerns about patient safety be addressed both by taking the steps set out in (a) above, and also by making leaders accountable for how the culture operates in their part of the system, and for the way in which it involves patients.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the official government response, the UK Government accepted in principle the recommendation for cultural change to address defensiveness and lack of openness in healthcare. The Scottish Government detailed its ongoing work and past responses to the Francis and Sturrock Reviews, which aimed to promote staff raising concerns and foster supportive, open, and transparent workplace cultures (Official government response, 21 July 2025). Additionally, the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26, known as the "Hillsborough Law," was introduced in September 2025, passed the House of Commons in January 2026, and is progressing through the House of Lords, creating a statutory duty of candour for public authorities with criminal sanctions, which directly contributes to leadership accountability for cultural change (UK Parliament, 19 January 2026).
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Simplify External Regulation
Recommendation
Regulation: That external regulation of safety in healthcare be simplified. As a first step towards this, there should be a UK wide review by the four health departments of the systems of external regulation, with the aim of addressing all …
Read more
Regulation:
That external regulation of safety in healthcare be simplified. As a first step towards this, there should be a UK wide review by the four health departments of the systems of external regulation, with the aim of addressing all the points made earlier in this Report and in other reports since 2000.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the government's formal response of 21 July 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation to simplify external regulation of safety in healthcare and initiate a UK-wide review. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care commissioned Dr Penny Dash to conduct a review of patient safety in the health and care landscape, focusing on six core bodies: the Care Quality Commission (CQC), The National Guardian’s Office, Healthwatch England, the Health Services Safety Investigation Body (HSSIB), the Patient Safety Commissioner, and NHS Resolution, and how they interact with the wider system.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Safety Management Systems Coordination
Recommendation
Regulation: That the national healthcare administrations in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales explore, and if appropriate, support the development and implementation of safety management systems (“SMS”s) through SMS coordination groups (as recommended by the HSSIB), and do so as …
Read more
Regulation:
That the national healthcare administrations in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales explore, and if appropriate, support the development and implementation of safety management systems (“SMS”s) through SMS coordination groups (as recommended by the HSSIB), and do so as a matter of priority.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the government's formal response of 21 July 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation to explore and support the development of safety management systems (SMSs) through coordination groups. NHS England established an SMS coordination group in 2023 with partners from across the healthcare system, including providers, patients, regulators, the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB), academia, and other safety-critical industries, to explore the potential for adopting SMS principles and processes in the NHS. While this demonstrates action in England, the provided evidence does not explicitly detail similar initiatives by the national healthcare administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Patient Records Audit
Recommendation
Patient Records: Before the end of 2027 there should be a formal audit, publicly reported, of the extent of success of digitisation of patient records in each of the four health jurisdictions of the UK, measuring at least the levels …
Read more
Patient Records:
Before the end of 2027 there should be a formal audit, publicly reported, of the extent of success of digitisation of patient records in each of the four health jurisdictions of the UK, measuring at least the levels of patient access to their personal records, their ability to identify and correct apparent errors in them, their interoperability, and the confidence of health professionals in the detail, accuracy and timeliness of any record they enter, and that little material which should be recorded has been omitted. Next steps should be identified.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the official government response, the UK Government accepted the recommendation for a formal, publicly reported audit of patient record digitisation across the four UK health jurisdictions by the end of 2027. NHS England is supporting the digitisation of data through its Frontline Digitisation programme, aiming for all secondary care trusts to have an electronic patient record system (EPR) (Official government response, 21 July 2025). Ongoing Digital Maturity Assessments already capture most of the content required for the audit, and NHS England is determining how to capture the remaining items, such as patient access and confidence.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Cross-Administration Patient Safety Coordination
Recommendation
Coordination of patient records with devolved governments: Consideration should be given by the national healthcare administrations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to further coordination of their approaches particularly to ensure that patterns of harm, or trends, are identified …
Read more
Coordination of patient records with devolved governments:
Consideration should be given by the national healthcare administrations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to further coordination of their approaches particularly to ensure that patterns of harm, or trends, are identified and any response which for the sake of patient safety would be better coordinated than left to each individual administration can collaboratively be agreed and implemented.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the government's formal response to the Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report (2025-10-23), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, stating that NHS England operates the Learn From Patient Safety Events service, which analyses approximately 3 million incidents annually, and Scotland requires Health Boards to notify Healthcare Improvement Scotland of significant adverse events. The government indicated that coordination mechanisms continue to develop across the four nations. No specific new legislation or programmes for enhanced cross-administration patient safety coordination have been identified since the government response.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Civil Service Statutory Duty of Candour
Recommendation
The Government should reconsider whether, in the light of the facts revealed by this Inquiry, it is sufficient to continue to rely on the current non-statutory duties in the Civil Service and Ministerial Codes, coupled with those legal duties which …
Read more
The Government should reconsider whether, in the light of the facts revealed by this Inquiry, it is sufficient to continue to rely on the current non-statutory duties in the Civil Service and Ministerial Codes, coupled with those legal duties which occur on the occasions when civil servants and ministers interact with courts, inquests and inquiries, as securing candour.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the government's formal response to the Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report (2025-10-23), the UK Government accepted in principle the need for a statutory duty of candour, with the Prime Minister committing to legislation for public authorities. According to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 (UK Parliament, 2026-01-19), also known as the "Hillsborough Law," was introduced in September 2025, passed the House of Commons in January 2026, and is currently progressing through the House of Lords, creating a statutory duty of candour for public authorities with criminal sanctions.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Monitoring Non-Statutory Duties
Recommendation
If, on review, the Government considers that it is sufficient to rely on the current non-statutory duties in the Civil Service Code, it should nonetheless introduce a statutory duty of accountability on senior civil servants for the candour and completeness …
Read more
If, on review, the Government considers that it is sufficient to rely on the current non-statutory duties in the Civil Service Code, it should nonetheless introduce a statutory duty of accountability on senior civil servants for the candour and completeness of advice given to Permanent Secretaries and Ministers, and the candour and completeness of their response to concerns raised by members of the public and staff.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the government's formal response to the Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report (2025-10-23), the UK Government accepted in principle the introduction of a statutory duty of candour for public authorities, which would encompass senior civil servants, rather than solely relying on non-statutory duties. According to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 (UK Parliament, 2026-01-19), known as the "Hillsborough Law," was introduced in September 2025, passed the House of Commons in January 2026, and is currently progressing through the House of Lords, establishing a statutory duty of candour with criminal sanctions.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Ministerial Duty of Candour
Recommendation
The Government should consider the extent to which Ministers should be subject to a duty beyond their current duty to Parliament under the Ministerial Code.
Published evidence summary
According to the government's formal response to the Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report (2025-10-23), the UK Government accepted in principle the introduction of a statutory duty of candour, with the Prime Minister committing to legislation that would apply to public authorities, thereby extending beyond the current Ministerial Code. According to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 (UK Parliament, 2026-01-19), known as the "Hillsborough Law," was introduced in September 2025, passed the House of Commons in January 2026, and is currently progressing through the House of Lords, establishing a statutory duty of candour with criminal sanctions.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Hepatologist Oversight and Fibroscan Access
Recommendation
All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care: Those who have been diagnosed with cirrhosis at any point should receive lifetime monitoring by way of six-monthly fibroscans and annual clinical …
Read more
All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care:
Those who have been diagnosed with cirrhosis at any point should receive lifetime monitoring by way of six-monthly fibroscans and annual clinical review, either nurse-led, consultant-led or, where appropriate, by a GP with a specialist interest in hepatitis
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the government's formal response to the Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report (2025-10-23), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, stating that implementation would be balanced against promoting equitable access for all patients, ensuring consistent treatment regardless of disease acquisition, the practicability of different patient pathways, and adherence to the latest evidence-based care and clinical guidelines. No specific new policies, guidance, or programmes have been identified to confirm the provision of lifetime monitoring, six-monthly fibroscans, and annual clinical reviews specifically for patients with cirrhosis from infected blood.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Specialist Hepatology Centre Access
Recommendation
All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care:
Those who have fibrosis should receive the same care
Published evidence summary
According to the government's formal response to the Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report (2025-10-23), the UK Government accepted this recommendation in principle, noting that implementation would be balanced against principles of equitable access, consistent treatment irrespective of disease acquisition, the feasibility of distinct patient pathways, and current clinical guidelines. No specific new policies or guidance have been identified to confirm that patients with fibrosis due to infected blood are receiving the recommended care, including six-monthly fibroscans and annual clinical reviews.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Fibroscan Every Six Months
Recommendation
All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care:
Where there is any uncertainty about whether a patient has fibrosis they should receive the same care
Published evidence summary
According to the government's formal response to the Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report (2025-10-23), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, stating that its implementation would be balanced against promoting equitable access, ensuring consistent treatment regardless of disease acquisition, the practicability of different pathways, and adherence to the latest evidence-based care and clinical guidelines. No specific new policies or guidance have been identified to confirm that patients with uncertainty about fibrosis due to infected blood are receiving the recommended care, including six-monthly fibroscans and annual clinical reviews.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Named Hepatology Nurse Specialist
Recommendation
All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care:
Fibroscan [ultrasound] technology should be used for liver imaging, rather than alternatives
Published evidence summary
According to the government's formal response to the Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report (2025-10-23), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, noting that its implementation would be balanced against promoting equitable access for all, ensuring consistent treatment regardless of disease acquisition, the practicability of different pathways, and adherence to the latest evidence-based care and clinical guidelines. No specific new policies or guidance have been identified to mandate the exclusive use of Fibroscan technology for liver imaging for patients who contracted hepatitis via blood products.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Annual GP Appointment for Co-morbidities
Recommendation
All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care: Those who have had Hepatitis C which is attributable to infected blood or blood products should be seen by a consultant hepatologist, …
Read more
All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care:
Those who have had Hepatitis C which is attributable to infected blood or blood products should be seen by a consultant hepatologist, rather than a more junior member of staff, wherever practicable
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the government's formal response to the Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report (2025-10-23), the UK Government accepted this recommendation in principle, stating that implementation would be balanced against promoting equitable access, ensuring consistent treatment regardless of disease acquisition, the feasibility of distinct patient pathways, and current clinical guidelines. No specific new policies or guidance have been identified to ensure that patients who contracted Hepatitis C via infected blood or blood products are seen by a consultant hepatologist wherever practicable.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Assessment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Recommendation
All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care: Those bodies responsible for commissioning hepatology services in each of the home nations should publish the steps they have taken to satisfy …
Read more
All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care:
Those bodies responsible for commissioning hepatology services in each of the home nations should publish the steps they have taken to satisfy themselves that the services they are commissioning meet the particular needs of the group of people harmed by NHS treatment
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the government's formal response to the Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report (2025-10-23), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, noting that its implementation would be balanced against promoting equitable access, ensuring consistent treatment regardless of disease acquisition, the practicability of different pathways, and adherence to the latest evidence-based care and clinical guidelines. No specific publications from commissioning bodies in the home nations detailing the steps taken to ensure services meet the particular needs of those harmed by NHS treatment have been identified.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Transfusion Committees and Tranexamic Acid - England
Recommendation
In England, Hospital Transfusion Committees and transfusion practitioners take steps to ensure that consideration of tranexamic acid be on every hospital surgical checklist; that hospital medical directors be required to report to their boards and the chief executive of their …
Read more
In England, Hospital Transfusion Committees and transfusion practitioners take steps to ensure that consideration of tranexamic acid be on every hospital surgical checklist; that hospital medical directors be required to report to their boards and the chief executive of their Trust as to the extent of its use; and that the board report annually to NHS England as to the percentage of eligible operations which have involved its use. If the percentage is below 80% or has dropped since the previous year, this report should be accompanied with an explanation for the failure to use more tranexamic acid and thereby reduce the risk to patient safety that comes with using a transfusion of blood or red blood cells.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation in principle, stating that a working group comprising experts from NHS bodies, blood services, and external organisations like the National Blood Transfusion Committee and SHOT was formed to address the complex sub-recommendations. The government indicated that full implementation is expected to take several years due to the complexity involved, according to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025).
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Tranexamic Acid - Scotland, Wales and NI
Recommendation
In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland offering the use of tranexamic acid should be considered a treatment of preference in respect of all eligible surgery.
Published evidence summary
According to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025), the Scottish Government accepted this recommendation and, in November 2024, its Oversight and Assurance Group (OAG) wrote to Health Boards. The letter requested Boards to review their practices, confirm the offering of tranexamic acid to eligible patients before elective surgery, and utilise the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service’s (SNBTS) Clinical Transfusion Dashboard for identifying improvement areas.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Transfusion Performance Benchmarking
Recommendation
Consideration be given to standardising and benchmarking transfusion performance between hospitals in order to deliver better patient blood management
Published evidence summary
According to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, initiating a review of current benchmarking practices, data collection, and analysis requirements, including the model health dashboard and national clinical audit. A proposal was also submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to further develop new benchmarking categories and expand the model health dashboard, according to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025).
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Transfusion 2024 Review Progress
Recommendation
Review of progress towards the Transfusion 2024 recommendations: Progress in implementation of the Transfusion 2024 recommendations be reviewed, and next steps be determined and promulgated; and that in Scotland the 5 year plan is reviewed in or before 2027 with …
Read more
Review of progress towards the Transfusion 2024 recommendations:
Progress in implementation of the Transfusion 2024 recommendations be reviewed, and next steps be determined and promulgated; and that in Scotland the 5 year plan is reviewed in or before 2027 with a view to determining next steps.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, reporting that NHS England and NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) jointly conducted an initial review of progress against Transfusion 2024 recommendations. A draft report was discussed with key stakeholders in November 2024, with further input occurring in April/May 2025, and the full report was expected to be finalised during the first quarter of 2025/26, according to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025). Key aspects of this work have been incorporated into the Transfusion Transformation Strategy (TTS), according to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025).
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Transfusion Laboratory Staffing
Recommendation
Transfusion laboratories:
Transfusion laboratories should be staffed (and resourced) adequately to meet the requirements of their functions.
Published evidence summary
According to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation in principle, stating that work is ongoing to determine the current status of transfusion staffing, review best practices, and develop an evidence base to inform minimum staffing level standards. The government noted that this process involves complex data analysis and will require funding for full workforce modelling and the development of these standards, according to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025).
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Training in Transfusion Medicine
Recommendation
Training in Transfusion Medicine: That those bodies concerned with undergraduate and postgraduate training across the UK of those people who are, or intend to be, working in the NHS ensure that they are adequately trained in transfusion, that the standards …
Read more
Training in Transfusion Medicine:
That those bodies concerned with undergraduate and postgraduate training across the UK of those people who are, or intend to be, working in the NHS ensure that they are adequately trained in transfusion, that the standards by which sufficiency of training is measured are defined, and accountability for training in transfusion be defined.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation in principle, reporting that a stakeholder group, including professional and statutory bodies, is reviewing and proposing educational and training requirements. This group is collating patient safety e-learning material to create a four-nation mapping document, and curricula for medical, scientific, and nursing/allied health professional staff are currently under review to determine future provision and recommended practices, according to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025).
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Implementing SHOT Reports
Recommendation
Implementing SHOT reports: That all NHS organisations across the UK have a mechanism in place for implementing recommendations of Serious Hazard of Transfusion (SHOT) reports, which should be professionally mandated, and for monitoring such implementation.
Read more
Implementing SHOT reports:
That all NHS organisations across the UK have a mechanism in place for implementing recommendations of Serious Hazard of Transfusion (SHOT) reports, which should be professionally mandated, and for monitoring such implementation.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation in principle, stating that work is underway to develop governance practices for implementing Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT) recommendations, considering both standardisation and local organisational needs. Additionally, accreditation for SHOT to utilise the Central Alerting System is under consideration, which would enable the use of a web-based cascading system for patient safety alerts and enhance the visibility of recommendations, according to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025).
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Transfusion Outcome Framework
Recommendation
Establishing the outcome of every transfusion: That a framework be established for recording outcomes for recipients of blood components. That those records be used by NHS bodies to improve transfusion practice (including by providing such information to haemovigilance bodies). Success …
Read more
Establishing the outcome of every transfusion:
That a framework be established for recording outcomes for recipients of blood components. That those records be used by NHS bodies to improve transfusion practice (including by providing such information to haemovigilance bodies). Success in achieving this will be measured by the extent to which the SHOT reports for the previous three years show a progressive reduction in incidents of incorrect blood component transfusions measured as a proportion of the number of transfusions given.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, acknowledging the significant investment and cross-nation collaboration required for implementation. A design team is currently undertaking mapping of clinical pathways, assessing digitisation requirements, interoperability, and the employment of standards to support an effective long-term implementation plan for recording transfusion outcomes, according to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025).
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
NHSBT Transfusion Outcome Funding
Recommendation
Establishing the outcome of every transfusion:
To the extent that the funding for digital transformation does not already cover the setting up and operation of this framework, bespoke funding should be provided.
Published evidence summary
According to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, noting that implementing the related sub-recommendations requires substantial investment and collaboration across the four nations and multiple system partners. A design team is currently mapping clinical pathways, digitisation requirements, interoperability, and standards to inform an effective long-term implementation plan, which implicitly requires funding, according to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025).
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Blood Tracking Systems Funding
Recommendation
Establishing the outcome of every transfusion:
That funding for the provision of enhanced electronic clinical systems in relation to blood transfusion be regarded as a priority across the UK.
Published evidence summary
According to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation in principle, acknowledging that implementing the related sub-recommendations is challenging and requires substantial investment across the four nations and multiple system partners. A design team is currently mapping clinical pathways, digitisation requirements, interoperability, and standards to support an effective long-term implementation plan for blood tracking systems, according to the Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry (May 2025).
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Pre-1996 Transfusion Testing
Recommendation
When doctors become aware that a patient has had a blood transfusion prior to 1996, that patient should be offered a blood test for Hepatitis C.
Published evidence summary
According to Gov.uk, Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, May 2025, the UK Government stated in May 2025 that this recommendation was implemented across all four nations, with healthcare providers directed to offer Hepatitis C testing to patients who received blood transfusions before 1996. According to Gov.uk, Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, May 2025, NHS England affirmed its commitment to identifying all individuals infected with a bloodborne disease.
UK Government
(Primary)
NHS England
(Primary)
View Details
New Patient Registration Screening
Recommendation
As a matter of routine, new patients registering at a practice should be asked if they have had such a transfusion.
Published evidence summary
According to Gov.uk, Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, May 2025, the UK Government stated in May 2025 that this recommendation was implemented as standard practice, with GP practices now routinely asking new registering patients about their pre-1996 blood transfusion history. According to Gov.uk, Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, May 2025, NHS England also reiterated its commitment to identifying all those infected with a bloodborne disease.
UK Government
(Primary)
NHS England
(Primary)
View Details
Haemophilia Peer Review
Recommendation
That peer review of haemophilia care should continue to occur as presently practised, with any necessary support being provided by NHS Trusts and Health Boards;
Published evidence summary
According to Gov.uk, Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, May 2025, the UK Government stated in May 2025 that peer review of UK comprehensive care centres for haemophilia has been ongoing, with the triennial audit replaced by a five-year peer review cycle in 2019. According to Gov.uk, Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, May 2025, the NHS England specialist services specification for haemophilia and related bleeding disorders was updated to include a contractual requirement for providers to participate in and act upon peer review.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Trust/Board Action on Peer Reviews
Recommendation
That NHS Trusts and Health Boards should be required to deliberate on peer review findings and give favourable consideration to implementing the changes identified with a view to ensuring comprehensive, safe, care.
Published evidence summary
According to Gov.uk, Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, May 2025, the UK Government stated in May 2025 that the NHS England specialist services specification for haemophilia and related bleeding disorders was updated. According to that update, it includes a contractual requirement for providers to participate in and act upon peer review findings, addressing the need for NHS Trusts and Health Boards to deliberate on and implement identified changes.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Five-Year Peer Review Cycle
Recommendation
A peer review of each centre should take place not less than once every five years.
Published evidence summary
According to Gov.uk, Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, May 2025, the UK Government stated in May 2025 that the triennial audit for haemophilia care centres was replaced in 2019 with a more formal peer review process operating on a five-year cycle. According to the government, this change ensures that each centre undergoes peer review at least once every five years.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Haemophilia Centre Resources
Recommendation
The necessary administrative and clinical resources should be provided by hospital trusts and boards, integrated care boards, and service commissioners to facilitate multi-disciplinary regional networks to discuss policy and practice in haemophilia and other inherited bleeding disorders care, provided they …
Read more
The necessary administrative and clinical resources should be provided by hospital trusts and boards, integrated care boards, and service commissioners to facilitate multi-disciplinary regional networks to discuss policy and practice in haemophilia and other inherited bleeding disorders care, provided they involve patients in their discussions.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to Gov.uk, Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, May 2025, the UK Government stated in May 2025 that NHS England had drafted a proposed National Clinical Network Specification for multi-disciplinary regional networks in haemophilia and inherited bleeding disorders care. According to the draft specification, it aims to embed new requirements for providers to participate in a networked model of care.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Recombinant Products Over Plasma-Derived
Recommendation
Recombinant coagulation factor products should be offered in place of plasma-derived ones where clinically appropriate. Service commissioners should ensure that such treatment decisions are funded accordingly.
Published evidence summary
According to Gov.uk, Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, May 2025, the UK Government stated in May 2025 that NHS England was developing clinical commissioning policies for recombinant factors and other blood product alternatives. According to the government, as a rapid response to this recommendation, NHS England commenced funding for recombinant Von Willebrand factor (VWF) in August 2024, for all patient age groups, to manage bleeding episodes and surgical pre-treatment.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
National Haemophilia Database Support
Recommendation
That the National Haemophilia Database, run by the UKHCDO, merits the support of additional central funding.
Published evidence summary
According to Gov.uk, Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, May 2025, the UK Government stated in May 2025 that NHS England currently provides approximately 40% of the total annual cost for running the National Haemophilia Database. According to the government, a task and finish group related to the database has been established, reporting into the overarching recommendation 9 expert group, to further address support for the database.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Patient Satisfaction in Clinical Audits
Recommendation
A clinical audit should as a matter of routine include measures of patient satisfaction or concern, and these should be reported to the board of the body concerned. Success in this will be measured by comparing the measure of satisfaction …
Read more
A clinical audit should as a matter of routine include measures of patient satisfaction or concern, and these should be reported to the board of the body concerned. Success in this will be measured by comparing the measure of satisfaction from one year to the next, such that the reports to the board concerned demonstrate a trend of improvement by comparing this year’s outcomes with the similar outcomes from at least the two previous years.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the Gov.uk response (14 May 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, with the Health Secretary outlining an aim to achieve the 'highest patient satisfaction in history'. The government stated that the principles of including patient satisfaction in clinical audits are represented within new workstreams commissioned by the UK Government and NHS England. However, specific public evidence detailing the routine inclusion of patient satisfaction measures in clinical audits and their reporting to relevant boards, or a mechanism for year-on-year comparison, has not been identified since the government response in May 2025.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Charity Funding for Patient Advocacy
Recommendation
That the following charities receive funding specifically for patient advocacy: the UK Haemophilia Society; the Hepatitis C Trust; Haemophilia Scotland; the Scottish Infected Blood Forum; Haemophilia Wales; Haemophilia Northern Ireland; and the UK Thalassaemia Society.
Read more
That the following charities receive funding specifically for patient advocacy: the UK Haemophilia Society; the Hepatitis C Trust; Haemophilia Scotland; the Scottish Infected Blood Forum; Haemophilia Wales; Haemophilia Northern Ireland; and the UK Thalassaemia Society.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the Gov.uk response (14 May 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, committing to provide £500,000 in funding to the UK Haemophilia Society, The Hepatitis C Trust, and the UK Thalassaemia Society for patient advocacy work. As of May 2025, meetings were being held with these charities to progress the grants process. The Scottish Government also agreed to grant funding for its named charities. No further public evidence confirming the disbursement of these funds or the completion of the grants process has been identified since the May 2025 government response.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Additional Charity Support
Recommendation
That favourable consideration be given to other charities and organisations supporting people infected and affected that were granted core participant status (as listed on the Inquiry website) to continue to provide support for at least the next 18 months. Further …
Read more
That favourable consideration be given to other charities and organisations supporting people infected and affected that were granted core participant status (as listed on the Inquiry website) to continue to provide support for at least the next 18 months. Further support should be reviewed at that stage with a view to it continuing as appropriate.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the Gov.uk response (14 May 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, stating that consideration was being given to how best to support other charities and organisations that held core participant status, with a commitment to provide appropriate support. As of May 2025, this process was ongoing. No specific public evidence detailing the provision of support or funding to these additional charities has been identified since the government response.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Thalassaemia Society Support
Recommendation
Particular consideration be given, together with the UK Thalassaemia Society and the Sickle Cell Society, to how the needs of patients with thalassaemia or sickle cell disease can best holistically be addressed.
Published evidence summary
According to the Gov.uk response (14 May 2025), the UK Government accepted this recommendation in principle, and NHS England has established a comprehensive programme of work to address the needs of patients with thalassaemia or sickle cell disease. According to the Gov.uk response (14 May 2025), this programme, following a review of care pathways, focuses on reducing clinical risk, increasing community support, digitising care plans, and enhancing prevention activities; initial funding was provided to support focused work on improving care during acute crises.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Yellow Card System Prominence
Recommendation
Steps be taken to give greater prominence to the online Yellow Card system to those receiving drugs or biological products, or who are being transfused with blood components.
Published evidence summary
According to the Govt response (2025-05-14), the UK Government accepted this recommendation, noting the Yellow Card system is UK-wide. According to the Govt response (2025-05-14), the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA), in collaboration with Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT), developed plans and a high-level curriculum for blood training and awareness workshops, with initial workshops already delivered; further details on the prominence given to the online Yellow Card system itself are not specified in the provided evidence.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Ministerial Power to Call Inquiries
Recommendation
That a minister should retain the power to call an inquiry as the minister sees fit, in accordance with the Inquiries Act 2005 – but where a minister does not choose to do so, then:
Published evidence summary
According to the government's response of 2025-05-14, the UK Government accepted in principle the recommendation that a minister should retain the power to call an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. The government acknowledged the need for a recognised process in deciding whether to hold a public inquiry. No specific legislative or policy changes have been detailed in the provided evidence.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Parliamentary Referral to PACAC
Recommendation
If there is sufficient support from within Parliament for there to be an inquiry, the question whether there should be one should be referred to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) for it to consider the question.
Published evidence summary
According to the Govt response (2025-05-14), the UK Government accepted in principle the recommendation for parliamentary referral to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) if there is sufficient support for an inquiry, acknowledging the need for a recognised process in deciding whether to hold a public inquiry. According to the available evidence, no specific legislative or policy changes have been detailed.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
PACAC Recommendation Power
Recommendation
If it appears to PACAC that there is sufficient concern to justify a public inquiry, either because what happened and why has caused concern (as the committee sees it) or there are likely to be lessons learned which may prevent …
Read more
If it appears to PACAC that there is sufficient concern to justify a public inquiry, either because what happened and why has caused concern (as the committee sees it) or there are likely to be lessons learned which may prevent similar concerns arising in future, the committee may recommend to an appropriate minister that there be an inquiry.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the government's response of 2025-05-14, the UK Government accepted in principle the recommendation that PACAC may recommend a public inquiry to an appropriate minister if there is sufficient concern. The government acknowledged the need for a recognised process in deciding whether to hold a public inquiry. No specific legislative or policy changes have been detailed in the provided evidence.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Ministerial Reasons for Disagreement
Recommendation
If the minister disagrees with the recommendation, they must set out in detail and publish reasons for this disagreement which are sufficient to satisfy PACAC that the matter has been carefully and properly considered.
Published evidence summary
According to the Govt response (2025-05-14), the Govt response (2025-05-14) indicates the UK Government accepted in principle the recommendation that a minister must publish detailed reasons for disagreeing with a PACAC recommendation for an inquiry. According to the Govt response (2025-05-14), the government acknowledged the need for a recognised process in deciding whether to hold a public inquiry. No specific legislative or policy changes have been detailed in the provided evidence.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Implementation Commitment Within 12 Months
Recommendation
Within the next 12 months, the Government should consider and either commit to implementing the recommendations which I make, or give sufficient reason, in sufficient detail for others to understand, why it is not considered appropriate to implement any one …
Read more
Within the next 12 months, the Government should consider and either commit to implementing the recommendations which I make, or give sufficient reason, in sufficient detail for others to understand, why it is not considered appropriate to implement any one or more of them.
During that period, and before the end of this year – the Government should report back to Parliament as to the progress made on considering and implementing the recommendations.
This timetable should not interfere with earlier consideration and response to the Recommendations of the Second Interim Report of the Inquiry.
Show less
Published evidence summary
According to the Govt response, 2025-05-14; Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report: Government Response, 21 July 2025, the UK Government published its response to the Inquiry's May 2024 report in July 2025, fulfilling the commitment to consider and respond to recommendations within 12 months. According to the Govt response, 2025-05-14; Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report: Government Response, 21 July 2025, the response details the government's position on each recommendation and outlines ongoing work across Whitehall and with devolved governments.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
Parliamentary Progress Report
Recommendation
During that period, and before the end of this year – the Government should report back to Parliament as to the progress made on considering and implementing the recommendations.
Published evidence summary
According to the Govt response, 2025-05-14; Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report: Government Response, 21 July 2025, the UK Government published its response to the Inquiry's May 2024 report in July 2025, which served as a report back to Parliament on the progress made in considering and implementing the recommendations. According to the Govt response, 2025-05-14; Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report: Government Response, 21 July 2025, the UK Government published its response to the Inquiry's May 2024 report in July 2025, which served as a report back to Parliament on the progress made in considering and implementing the recommendations.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
No Delay to Second Interim Response
Recommendation
This timetable should not interfere with earlier consideration and response to the Recommendations of the Second Interim Report of the Inquiry.
Published evidence summary
According to the Govt response, 2025-05-14; Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report: Government Response, 21 July 2025, the UK Government confirmed that the timetable for responding to the main report did not interfere with earlier consideration and response to the recommendations of the Inquiry's Second Interim Report, noting actions taken in August 2024. According to the Govt response, 2025-05-14; Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report: Government Response, 21 July 2025, No specific update on the completion of this transfer has been identified since the government's response.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
PACAC Oversight of Implementation
Recommendation
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (“PACAC”) should review both the progress towards responding to the Inquiry’s recommendations and, to the extent that they are accepted, implementing those recommendations.
Published evidence summary
According to the Govt response (2025-05-14), the UK Government accepted in principle the recommendation for PACAC oversight of implementation, noting that this is a matter for Parliament to consider. According to the Govt response (2025-05-14), the government is actively considering wider reforms to inquiry frameworks and examining how to ensure more effective transparency and accountability, but no specific parliamentary action on PACAC's role has been detailed in the provided evidence.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details
PACAC Role for Future Inquiries
Recommendation
PACAC should accept the role in respect of any future statutory inquiry of reviewing the government’s timetable for consideration of recommendations, and of its progress towards implementation of that inquiry’s recommendations.
Published evidence summary
According to the Govt response, 2025-05-14, the UK Government accepted in principle the recommendation for PACAC to review government timetables and implementation progress for future inquiries, noting that this is a matter for Parliament to consider. According to the Govt response, 2025-05-14, the government is actively considering wider reforms to inquiry frameworks and examining how to ensure more effective transparency and accountability. No specific parliamentary action on PACAC's role has been detailed in the provided evidence.
UK Government
(Primary)
View Details