Recommendation 12a: Suspension during investigation
From Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Issues raised by Paterson, published 4 February 2020.
Recommendation
We recommend that if, when a hospital investigates a healthcare professional's behaviour, including the use of an HR process, any perceived risk to patient safety should result in the suspension of that healthcare professional.
In brief (written by this site)
In commentary from September 2024 published in February 2026, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England maintained that the recommendation was not accepted, stating that its underlying goals could be met through clear guidance and robust investigations (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team recorded in its February 2026 review that the recommendation had not been accepted by the government (The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team, Feb 2026). In their September 2024 update, the bodies noted that policy frameworks for raising concerns were being developed, alongside national people policy frameworks for providers to adopt locally, which will include a resolution framework (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026).
AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 26 Sep 2026. The record below is the sources' own words.
About this summary
This recommendation applies across many organisations. The record reflects central policy activity; adoption in individual organisations may vary.
Government response
Do not accept
We agree that exclusions and restriction of practice can be necessary and, in some cases, immediate exclusion is an appropriate response while an investigation is ongoing. However, we do not believe it would be fair or proportionate to impose a blanket rule to exclude practitioners in such cases.
Such a step may inadvertently cause a chilling effect, dissuading healthcare professionals from raising concerns, and negatively impacting patient safety. It is vital that investigations are robust and conducted in a timely manner.
Guidance has been put in place to ensure that concerns are taken seriously, appropriate action taken and that robust investigation processes are implemented, and that clarity on when to exclude a healthcare professional is provided.
We agree that there are circumstances where exclusion and restriction of practice are necessary. However, accepting this recommendation would lead to the potential for many professionals to have their practice restricted in circumstances where it would not be reasonably warranted.
Delivery
DHSC and NHS England say not accepted (27 February 2026)
This recommendation was not accepted by Government. The Government set out that the underlying goal of this recommendation could be met through:
• Ensuring concerns are taken seriously
• Implementing robust investigation processes • Providing clear guidance on decisions to suspend or exclude a healthcare professional
NHS England is developing a number of policy frameworks for raising concerns. For example, a sexual misconduct policy framework.
NHS England has concluded its review of how best practice guidance has been implemented, which will be factored into its work to develop the Human Resources & Organisational Development profession in the NHS. Part of this work will include producing a number of national people policy frameworks for providers to adopt locally, which will include a resolution policy framework. In the light of this work, it will not be introducing a common management framework.
In April 2022, NHS Resolution (NHSR) published a suite of resources to support decisions relating to the exclusion of professionals.
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 “Not accepted”. Table row: section 29.2 No. P9 / Action 9.1a, PDF page 746-747.
DHSC states no delivery position (15 May 2024)
Action 9.1.a
The government set out that the underlying goal of this recommendation could be met.
From: The Thirlwall Inquiry: Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version of 15 May 2024), The Department of Health and Social Care
Site note: DHSC's own comments on progress, supplied to the Thirlwall Inquiry in February 2024 and printed in the Inquiry legal team's Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version of 15 May 2024). They are not a finding of the Inquiry. Table row: section 26.2 No. P9 / Action 9.1a, 9.1b, PDF page 746-749.
Department of Health and Social Care says not accepted (15 December 2022)
This element of recommendation 12 was not accepted by the government.
What other bodies have found
In their own words. These do not change the delivery statement above.
Thirlwall Inquiry legal team (27 February 2026)
Action 9.1: Not accepted by the government. “We agree that exclusions and restriction of practice can be necessary and, in some cases, immediate exclusion is an appropriate response while an investigation is ongoing. However, we do not believe it would be fair or proportionate to impose a blanket rule to exclude practitioners in such cases.
Such a step may inadvertently cause a chilling effect, dissuading healthcare professionals from raising concerns, and negatively impacting patient safety. It is vital that investigations are robust and conducted in a timely manner.
Guidance has been put in place to ensure that concerns are taken seriously, appropriate action taken and that robust investigation processes are implemented, and that clarity on when to exclude a healthcare professional is provided.” – Government response document, 16 December 2021.
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 dated April 2025, published 27 February 2026). 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 29.2 No. P9 / Action 9.1a, PDF page 746-747.
Earlier findings (1)
Thirlwall Inquiry legal team (15 May 2024)
Action 9.1:
Not accepted by the government.
“We agree that exclusions and restriction of practice can be necessary and, in some cases, immediate exclusion is an appropriate response while an investigation is ongoing. However, we do not believe it would be fair or proportionate to impose a blanket rule to exclude practitioners in such cases.
Such a step may inadvertently cause a chilling effect, dissuading healthcare professionals from raising concerns, and negatively impacting patient safety. It is vital that investigations are robust and conducted in a timely manner.
Guidance has been put in place to ensure that concerns are taken seriously, appropriate action taken and that robust investigation processes are implemented, and that clarity on when to exclude a healthcare professional is provided.” – Government response document, 16 December 2021.
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 26.2 No. P9 / Action 9.1a, 9.1b, PDF page 746-749.
Source
Responsible bodies
Themes and tags
Who has spoken
- Department of Health and Social Care
Response, delivery statement - DHSC and NHS England
Delivery statement - DHSC
Delivery statement - Thirlwall Inquiry legal team
Finding