Independent Inquiry into the Issues raised by Paterson

Completed

Paterson Inquiry

Chair Bishop Graham James Other
Established 13 Feb 2018
Final Report 04 Feb 2020

Inquiry into rogue surgeon Ian Paterson who performed unnecessary breast operations on hundreds of patients in NHS and private hospitals. Examined failures in healthcare regulation and patient safety.

Evidence & Impact
The Independent Inquiry into the Issues raised by Paterson examined the case of Ian Paterson, a breast surgeon who performed unnecessary operations on hundreds of patients in both NHS and private hospitals. The inquiry, chaired by Bishop Graham James, published 17 recommendations in February 2020 focusing on patient safety, regulatory oversight, and accountability in healthcare.

The government response in December 2021 accepted nine recommendations, accepted six in principle, rejected one (automatic suspension of consultants under investigation), and kept one under consideration. The response emphasised existing regulatory frameworks whilst acknowledging gaps in oversight, particularly regarding consultants working under practising privileges in the independent sector.

Published evidence of progress includes several concrete developments. The National Quality Board Recall Framework was published in June 2022, developed with input from Paterson patients. Medical defence organisations launched a voluntary Code of Practice for discretionary indemnity in January 2025, though this falls short of the mandatory 'nationwide safety net' the inquiry recommended. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges updated guidance on writing to patients, and CQC strengthened requirements for independent providers.

However, for eight recommendations accepted or accepted in principle, no published evidence of specific action has been identified. These include improving data flows between regulators, embedding cooling-off periods for elective procedures, and addressing the legal responsibility gap for consultants in independent practice. The government's response frequently referenced ongoing work and future intentions, but follow-up evidence remains limited.

The pattern suggests acceptance of the inquiry's principles but slower progress on systemic reforms. Where action has been taken, it has often relied on voluntary measures or updates to existing guidance rather than the legislative or mandatory changes the inquiry envisaged. Six years after publication, the implementation status shows 15 of 17 recommendations still awaiting action according to available records.
Reforms Attributed to This Inquiry
- National Quality Board Recall Framework published June 2022, establishing principles for patient-centred recall in secondary care across NHS and independent sectors
- Academy of Medical Royal Colleges updated 2018 guidance 'Please write to me' requiring consultants to write directly to patients in clear language
- CQC strengthened registration conditions requiring independent healthcare providers to ensure patients understand consultant engagement arrangements and practising privileges
- CQC updated inspection methodology to specifically examine MDT functioning and compliance with national guidance
- GMC guidance on consent updated 2020 emphasising patients should have time to consider information before decisions
- Medical defence organisations launched voluntary Code of Practice for discretionary indemnity January 2025
Unfinished Business
- Recommendation 1: Government accepted in principle improving data flows to CQC and GMC, but no published evidence of the workforce repository or improved data sharing solutions being operational
- Recommendation 11: Government accepted strengthening regulatory collaboration, but no specific evidence of new arrangements beyond existing CQC/GMC information sharing
- Recommendation 12b: Government accepted in principle sharing concerns between employers, but no evidence of resolved legal/data protection issues or new information flows
- Recommendation 13: Government accepted in principle addressing gap in legal responsibility for consultants under practising privileges, but no evidence of legislative change or voluntary improvements
- Recommendation 14: Government accepted promoting early apology through NHS Resolution, but no evidence of specific training programmes or embedding across sectors
- Recommendation 15: Government keeping under review requirement for independent providers treating NHS patients to meet NHS standards, but no evidence of monitoring outcomes or further measures
- Recommendation 4: Government accepted in principle embedding cooling-off periods for elective procedures, but no evidence of Royal Colleges guidance or monitoring of implementation
- Recommendation 6b: Government accepted in principle making independent adjudication mandatory for private healthcare providers, but no evidence of consultation outcomes or legislative proposals
Generated 18 Mar 2026 using claude-opus-4. Assessment is indicative, not authoritative.
1 year, 11 months Duration
238 Statements
Government Response

Total Recommendations 17
Data last updated: 8 Jul 2025
Data verified: 23 Mar 2026 (import)
How to read this

Government Response tracks what the government said it would do (accepted, rejected, etc.).

Full methodology

2 debates 4 questions 5 statements since Feb 2020
Written Ministerial Statement Update on the Government’s response to the Independent Inquiry into the Issues …
Ms Nadine Dorries (Conservative)
23 Mar 2021
Written Question Paterson Inquiry
Alex Norris (Labour)
09 Mar 2021
Written Question Paterson Inquiry
Alex Norris (Labour)
09 Mar 2021
Written Question Paterson Inquiry
Alex Norris (Labour)
09 Mar 2021
Written Question Paterson Inquiry
Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat)
22 Sep 2020
View all 11 mentions →

Recommendations (1)

15
Under Consideration
Independent sector NHS contract qualification
Recommendation
We recommend that if the government accepts any of the recommendations set out above, it should make arrangements to ensure that these are to be applicable across the whole of the independent sector's workload, where relevant, and not only to … Read more
Published evidence summary
According to the government's December 2021 response, the Department of Health and Social Care did not accept this recommendation but stated it was keeping it under review due to concerns about proportionality and unintended consequences. The government noted that the NHS Standard Contract already requires providers to meet certain standards and CQC registration applies to all providers regardless of funding source. No further specific published evidence on the outcome of the review or monitoring of voluntary improvements has been identified since the 2021 response.
Department of Health and Social Care (Primary)
View Details