Recommendation BRIS-89: Involve public, employers, and professional groups in revalidation processes
From Bristol Heart Inquiry — Final Report, published 18 July 2001.
Recommendation
The public, as well as the employer and the relevant professional group, must be involved in the processes of revalidation.
Government response
No government response to this recommendation is on the record yet.
Delivery
DHSC and NHS England state no delivery position (27 February 2026)
Please see response to Recommendation 46 and 80 (Professional standards)
GMC revalidation requirements stipulate that at least once in each revalidation cycle doctors, AAs and PAs collect and reflect on feedback from patients, collected using a formal solicited feedback exercise.
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 Their reviewed extent of implementation reads “Superseded”. Table row: section 6.2 No. 89, PDF page 111.
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 with this recommendation.
In its January 2002 response, the Department of Health said that medical revalidation would involve lay people participating in local panels, and that this model would provide a benchmark for other professions.
The proposal to evaluate doctors by revalidation panels was dropped by April 2003.
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. 89, PDF page 101.
Themes and tags
Who has spoken
- DHSC and NHS England
Delivery statement - Thirlwall Inquiry legal team
Finding