Checklist for NHS organisations when commissioning external reviews
When commissioning external reviews, robust end-to-end Terms of Reference (ToR) should be agreed at the outset. Find out more here.
Consider taking legal advice on the Terms of Reference (ToR) to ensure that all parties comply with legal obligations and avoid the many potential pitfalls that can beset external reviews Where the ToR are defective or inadequate it can be difficult to put right once the review is underway, resulting in avoidable distress to patients and staff and extensive reputational damage. Key issues to be addressed in the ToR are:
Checklist
Consider a Royal College Review. If not, research the External Reviewer carefully. Take references, look at previous reviews they have produced, obtain CVs and check their expertise is appropriate for the review.
Ensure you are assured that the External Reviewer is independent of the Trust and does not have a conflict of interest. Keep a written record of how/why the particular reviewer was chosen so you can demonstrate this later.
Options include a thematic review or an individual case/clinician/department review.
These may include regulators, commissioners, governors, NHS Resolution, Secretary of State for Health as well as individuals such as staff, patients and clinicians.
As a matter of law, the consent of patients (and clinicians) to use their information is not strictly required but that does not minimise the importance of patient engagement. Given the likely stress that could be caused by a review, it may be decided only to proceed with patient consent obtained at the outset.
Careful consideration should be given to how engagement will take place. There is a balance between securing patient buy in / transparency and not disclosing confidential information that could have an adverse impact on the welfare of individuals.
Where it is anticipated the External Reviewer will be contacting individual clinicians and/or other colleagues, write to them in advance, provide them with the ToR, explain what will be expected of them and give them an indication of timeframes and likely next steps.
Ensure robust security systems are in place for the External Reviewer to access data. Electronic access to records can be provided using secure icloud storage/data room.
Reviewers are unlikely to need to see all of a patient’s record e.g. they may only need to see the records from a defined period of time, treatment episode or department. Identifiable data should be kept to a minimum. Pseudonymised data (staff and patients) should be used where possible but this still represents the processing of personal data for the purposes of Data Protection legislation.
Remember that documents generated during the review may be disclosable to the Coroner or in any future compensation claim, and that it may be several years before you are asked to produce them. Ensure they can be easily found.
Do you want the review to be limited to a review of the medical records/papers or will the External Reviewer interview patients and staff or consider written statements from them? If there are to be interviews, be open with interviewees at the outset as to how the information they provide will be used and who it will be shared with, to avoid any allegations of breach of confidence later on. Also record and transcribe interviews, again avoids any dispute over the accuracy of statement produced.
Set a timescale that is realistic and achievable to address quality concerns and inform improvements quickly.
Plan from the start how the report will be shared internally and externally – what is the management plan for this? There may be two reports (one for publication, one not) or a publishable executive summary. If suboptimal care is found, how will this be shared with affected patients, staff and media? In high profile cases, a robust media and communications plan should be agreed with key stakeholders, including the regulators, to ensure consistent, transparent public messaging.
Any organisation or individual who is the subject of adverse comment in the report should be given the right to respond and produce evidence in reply before the report is finalised.
If the finding is that there has been sub-optimal care, how will that be managed? What is the Trust going to do about it and how will any systemic issues which arise be addressed? Will the final report pass through the Trust’s usual quality process for learning purposes?
Involve your Freedom to Speak Up Guardian. Consider inviting the whistleblower to contribute to the ToR so they cannot suggest later that they were not involved. Ensure the complainant receives adequate feedback (subject to confidentiality obligations).
Contact

Nicola Evans
Partner
Nicola.Evans@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)330 045 2962
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
Automatic suspension and procurement law
Opinion
Plans to amend NHS pension rules to bolster NHS workforce approved by government
Opinion
Increase to 20 hour limit on supplementary employment for Health and Care Worker visa holders
Legal Update
Supreme Court will hear Worcestershire case on local authority responsibility for Section 117 Aftercare in April 2023
Published Article
Thinking outside the box
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Implementing learning from claims to help improve patient safety
Legal Update
Cauda Equina Syndrome and application of the new GIRFT pathway
Opinion - Maternity services
University Hospital Leicester hold their inaugural Maternity Safety Conference
Opinion
Junior doctors vote unanimously in favour of strike action
Opinion
Can toilet facilities amount to sex discrimination?
Published Article
Digital Twin Technologies: key legal contractual considerations
Opinion
Consultation launched on minimum ambulance service levels during strike action
Opinion - Maternity services
Changes to redundancy protections for employees post-maternity leave
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Coroners’ Question Time
On-Demand
Future of Care - Retirement Living webinar
Press Release - Careers
Browne Jacobson health lawyer wins major accolade at Made in Manchester Awards
Opinion
BMA issues medical locum rate card for junior doctors
Legal Update
Employee who refused to wear a face mask fairly dismissed
Opinion
New toolkit to support safer recruitment in the care sector
Legal Update
Green Leases for the NHS
On-Demand
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) in the context of retirement living
Guide
Government response to the consultation on the Higher-Risk Buildings Regulations
Published Article
The first 100 days for Integrated Care Boards
Opinion
Menopause and the workplace
Opinion
Government introduces new “anti-striking laws” to be discussed in Parliament
Press Release - Maternity services
Father Christmas comes to University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire care of Browne Jacobson’s Birmingham Office Community Action Group
Opinion - Maternity services
The Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) and its impact on maternity services
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Looking ahead to 2023 – what Health and Care employers need to know
Opinion
Coroner’s refusal to issue a Prevention of Future Deaths Report following death in prison custody inquest was lawful
Article
Mental health, eating disorders and placement of young people
Legal Update
LPS consultation and ‘go live’ planning
Opinion
Consultation launched on plans to amend NHS pension rules to bolster NHS workforce
Legal Update
Getting ready to face Industrial Action
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Prolonged disorders of consciousness
Online Event
Mock Inquest Training Sessions
Published Article
How AI and technology can transform the healthcare sector
On-Demand
The UK's green agenda - the outcomes of COP27 and actions since COP26
On-Demand
Insights from the Chief Coroner by His Honour Judge Thomas Teague, KC
Opinion
BMA advises consultants not to accept less than the BMA minimum rate card for extra-contractual work
The BMA is advising all NHS / HSCNI consultants to ensure extra-contractual work is paid at the BMA minimum recommended rate and to decline offers of extra-contractual work that doesn't value them appropriately.