Recommendation BRIS-137: CHI should integrate existing trust accreditation programmes into its validation process
From Bristol Heart Inquiry — Final Report, published 18 July 2001.
Recommendation
CHI should consider how it might work with the providers of those programmes of accreditation already adopted by a significant number of trusts. In the future, where required standards are met, CHI should accept as part of its validation process the accreditation obtained through these programmes.
Government response
No government response to this recommendation is on the record yet.
Delivery
DHSC and NHS England say not accepted (27 February 2026)
This recommendation was not accepted by the Government.
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 6.2 No. 137, PDF page 132.
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 rejected this recommendation.
In its January 2002 response, the Department of Health said it believed that the proposed system of validation and revalidation could have a detrimental effect on the delivery of health services. The Department proposed instead to give the Commission for Health Improvement the power and responsibility to recommend special measures for trusts which failed to meet standards.
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. 137, PDF page 116.
Themes and tags
Who has spoken
- DHSC and NHS England
Delivery statement - Thirlwall Inquiry legal team
Finding