Feedback Report: Trauma-Informed Inquiry Consultation

Respondents stressed that safety encompasses far more than physical security. Emotional, psychological, and practical supports were seen as essential. 

Many welcomed existing measures including the Inquiry’s continued commitment to providing secure venues, emotional support at hearings, and trauma informed training for staff but sought clearer explanation of available support, including for those engaging remotely. 

A major theme was the need to reduce repeated retelling of traumatic experiences and to ensure participants felt believed, respected, and in control. 

Respondents also requested detailed practical information ahead of hearings, sensitivity to mobility and health challenges, and reassurance that their engagement would not affect access to healthcare.

Meaningful choice was seen as central to restoring agency to those who have been disempowered by trauma. Different preferences for receiving communication from the Inquiry were shared, ranging from written information only to direct contact via the telephone or face-to-face meetings. 

We heard that it has been hard to understand the roles of the different organisations involved in the wider process and that some information former patients have received from organisations associated with the Inquiry’s work has been confusing. 

Many respondents asked for clear, concise, jargon free information; options to attend hearings online or in person; flexibility regarding timing; and manageable volumes of communication. 

Several also emphasised the need for adequate time to prepare for hearings or complete forms and stressed the emotional difficulty and cognitive challenges that can accompany participation. 

Better explanation of the role of the Independent Clinical Review (ICR) was also requested.

Empowerment, for most, meant being heard, believed, and seeing their experiences reflected in tangible outcomes. 

Respondents asked for clear explanations of how lived experience influence decisions, the opportunity to tell their full story appropriately, and updates that explain how their contributions affect the Inquiry’s work. 

Participants highlighted the emotional cost of repeatedly seeking help and the importance of trauma informed engagement throughout.

Four core lessons have emerged:

• Complexity and unfamiliar processes can overwhelm participants who have had traumatic experiences. The Inquiry must remain responsive, clear, and open to evolving needs.
• Roles and responsibilities require clearer explanation, including the distinction between the Inquiry, legal representatives, and the ICR.
• Trauma informed principles are interconnected. Safety relies on trust; trust relies on collaboration and choice; and all depend on independence and clarity.
• Participants strongly value being heard. Former patients want the Inquiry to understand their experiences without requiring repeated retelling of traumatic events.

Respondents sought increased access to trauma informed practitioners, including for remote participants, and clearer information about quiet spaces at hearings. 

While the Inquiry cannot provide long term therapy or establish a counselling service, we are strengthening arrangements for emotional support during engagement and will expand trauma informed training for all staff. 

Those who follow our hearings online will now have access to similar emotional support to those who attend in person. 

We will also provide participant support sessions for witnesses before and after they attend hearings. 

There is also a new page on our website which signposts to sources of support the Inquiry is aware of to assist those looking for appropriate services or information.

Respondents sought clear explanations of decisions, openness about missing records, and visible independence. 

The Inquiry’s Public Hearings Protocol sets out the structure of our six evidential phases, and the identity of witnesses who will be asked to attend to provide oral evidence will be made public ahead of hearings. 

Decisions will continue to be explained in writing and at hearings.

The ICR process and the ability of patients or patient representatives to contribute to it play a central role in enabling individual stories to be heard once, rather than repeatedly. 

Lived experience has already shaped the Terms of Reference and List of Issues and will continue to inform the Inquiry’s work.

Clear information about travel, accessibility, and venue arrangements will continue to be provided. 

We are introducing a system allowing attendees to request access the building without passing media or protesters.

Respondents stressed the importance of examining systemic failures beyond individual actions. 

The Inquiry’s Terms of Reference reflect the requirements for broad systemic investigation which the Inquiry is already undertaking. While the time bar issue is outside of our remit, changes in relevant policy since the consultation have been noted. 

The Chair is empowered to make recommendations which seek to promote systemic change, where he considers it appropriate.

As far as accountability is concerned, the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference empower the Chair to make findings about matters falling within his remit, including (where appropriate) to identity things which fell below a reasonable standard, why they did, as well as who or what organisations were responsible. 

The Inquiry will investigate and examine and hold those responsible for any failings accountable.

Further updates will be provided during at Inquiry hearings.

Being trauma informed is an ongoing process rather than a fixed state. The Inquiry will continue to listen and adapt throughout its work, as its published principles commit it to doing.