- 29 September 2026
The Thirlwall Inquiry into the devastating loss of life at the Countess of Chester Hospital raised many governance failures.
Reading the report highlights the pain parents suffered and how procedures were not followed.
One of the clearest examples of the process breaking down involves a consultant raising concerns with senior staff members that the increase in deaths might be linked to one nurse. The Inquiry findings show he was “shouted down by the nurses and ignored by the executives.” Safeguarding rules said suspicion was enough to act on but managers did not apply this and hospital policy offered little guidance on staff harming a child.
The board was left without the information it needed, for example, it did not receive any reports about the deaths of babies and children at any stage between 2015 and 2018. Boards cannot work without the facts. Executives were providing reassurance such as board minutes recording that every death was being reviewed, but in reality only adult deaths were. The need for boards to interrogate the detail and seek assurance is a broader issue than this investigation into a single hospital.
Challenges of AI governance
The Inquiry recommendations include a route to harmonised NHS computer systems and the health service’s 10 Year Health Plan commits to a shift from analogue to digital. Artificial intelligence is already being used in the form of note taking tools in the NHS and probably the most visible change will be the introduction of an AI triage tool as part of the NHS app that is due for every user by April 2028.
The adoption of AI tools is creating new governance challenges, as our recent research demonstrates. Taking evidence from governance professionals across the corporate, public, charity and education sectors, the research found that AI adoption is advancing faster than organisations' ability to govern it effectively.
Equipping Governance Professionals to Lead AI Conversations revealed a board capability gap between relatively high awareness of AI and a lack of confidence in challenging AI-generated outputs and overseeing AI-enabled decision-making.
These results are particularly concerning following news headlines regarding the debate between leading AI labs about the safety of their models and what regulatory framework, if any, should be applied to them.
I discussed these subjects at the recent CGI Global Governance Summit in Kuala Lumpur. It was valuable to get insights from colleagues across the globe as I chaired a panel on the governance of digital technology. We directly addressed the issue of how boards develop and oversee an organisation’s use of AI and the impact it can have on an entity’s culture, operations, and strategy.
A global register of members
As part of my visit to Malaysia, I attended the CGI Global Council to discuss a range of issues to improve our members’ learning experience and support their careers.
One of the items was a global register of members. It would give employers and boards anywhere in the world a simple way to confirm the professional standing of the governance professionals who advise them.
Assurance depends on evidence that can be checked. As many organisations adapt technology faster than they can govern it, being able to verify who is advising the board is of real value and something our members can offer wherever they work.
The register is one of several new member benefits we are developing, and I look forward to sharing more about what it will offer members in early 2027.