Guide news
All Latest News →Current developments
GMC training survey shows improvement but persistent variation
General Medical CouncilRCOG refreshes support resources for doctors
Royal College of Obstetricians and GynaecologistsRCP publishes SAS priorities for 2026–30
Royal College of PhysiciansRCEM condemns rising violence and discrimination against NHS staff
Royal College of Emergency Medicine09
Navigate
Informal, formal and speaking-up routes
Choose between direct resolution, mediation, grievance, dignity-at-work and speaking-up processes without confusing their purposes.
Choose a route by the outcome and risk, not by whichever contact is easiest to find. Informal resolution can repair workable relationships; formal procedures investigate or decide employment concerns; speaking-up routes address risks or wrongdoing in the public interest. More than one route may be relevant, but each should have a clear purpose.
By the end of this module, you should be able to:
- Match common workplace concerns to possible routes.
- Understand the strengths and limits of informal resolution.
- Use four-nation speaking-up frameworks accurately.
Start with the outcome
Ask what needs to change: behaviour, communication, workload, a decision, patient safety, access to support, an adjustment, policy compliance or a formal finding. A direct conversation may change behaviour but cannot provide an independent finding. A grievance may address a personal employment complaint but may not be the best route for a systemic patient-safety concern. Speaking up may protect wider interests but does not automatically determine an individual contractual remedy.
Write one sentence describing the issue and one describing the outcome. Then check policy scope and obtain advice. If several routes are relevant, ask how they will be coordinated, whether one will pause, who owns each decision and how information will be shared.
Informal resolution
Informal action may include a direct conversation, a manager-facilitated discussion, coaching, an agreed behaviour plan or voluntary mediation. It can be faster, less adversarial and well suited to misunderstanding, communication difficulty or early low-level conduct. Record agreed actions and a review date so that 'informal' does not mean invisible.
It is unsuitable where there is immediate danger, violence, serious sexual conduct, severe intimidation, a marked power imbalance, risk of evidence being lost, repeated failed attempts or a policy requirement for formal action. The person raising a concern should not be pressured to mediate merely to protect organisational comfort.
Formal grievance and dignity-at-work procedures
The current Acas Code for Great Britain sets core principles of promptness, consistency, necessary investigation, information about the issue, an opportunity to respond, accompaniment at qualifying formal meetings and appeal. An employer may use a separate dignity-at-work, bullying, harassment, sexual-harassment or capability procedure. Read the actual policy rather than assuming the title determines the process.
A focused grievance identifies the issue, key events, relevant policy or duty, effect, prior attempts and remedy. Ask who will investigate, how conflicts will be managed, what interim protections apply, which information will be shared, the expected timescale and how to appeal. Internal findings do not automatically decide an employment tribunal claim.
Speaking up and whistleblowing
Speaking up can concern anything that gets in the way of safe, high-quality care or affects working life, depending on the national and local framework. Legal whistleblowing protection has specific tests, including the nature of the disclosure and reasonable belief; not every personal grievance qualifies. A concern may contain both personal and public-interest elements.
Keep the concern factual: what risk exists, who may be affected, what evidence supports it, where it was raised and what action followed. Ask for feedback and escalation options. If detriment is feared or experienced, seek union or legal advice promptly.
Four nations, different frameworks
England uses the NHS Freedom to Speak Up framework and local guardians, although national arrangements continue to evolve. Wales uses Speaking up Safely. Scotland's National Whistleblowing Standards include the Independent National Whistleblowing Officer. Northern Ireland has HSC raising-concerns guidance and local organisational procedures. Contacts, review stages and external bodies differ.
Label the nation before following a template. Doctors working across employers or nations should check each organisation's current policy. A national framework does not remove the need to use urgent clinical escalation when a patient is at immediate risk.
Representation, accompaniment and time limits
At qualifying formal disciplinary and grievance meetings in Great Britain, workers have a statutory right to be accompanied by a fellow worker, trade-union representative or certified official. Local policies may allow additional support. An investigatory meeting does not carry the same automatic statutory right, although policy or reasonable-adjustment considerations may permit accompaniment.
Legal time limits can be short and do not necessarily wait for internal procedures. Acas early conciliation is relevant to Great Britain tribunal claims; Northern Ireland has separate institutions. Seek individual advice early rather than using a general website to calculate a deadline.
Worked example: two connected routes
A doctor is repeatedly denied safe senior cover and is also criticised after raising the gap. The continuing patient risk is described through the clinical governance and national speaking-up framework. The alleged retaliatory treatment is discussed with the union and, where appropriate, raised under the employment or equality procedure. The accounts share a factual chronology but ask different decision-makers for different outcomes.
The doctor asks whether the processes will be coordinated and who will receive information. This avoids duplicate contradictory interviews while preserving the distinction between correcting a safety risk and resolving personal detriment.
Questions to compare routes
For each route ask: What concerns can it consider? Can it impose a remedy? Who investigates and decides? Is accompaniment allowed? What confidentiality applies? What feedback and appeal are available? Does it affect an external deadline? What protection exists against detriment?
Record why the route was chosen and what would trigger escalation. A route that is appropriate today may need to change if behaviour repeats, new evidence emerges or immediate safety deteriorates.
What outcome do you need, which process has authority to deliver it, and what separate support will you need while it runs?
Keep in mind
Three takeaways
- 1Select the route by purpose and authority.
- 2Informal action must be safe, voluntary where appropriate and reviewable.
- 3Check national and local frameworks and seek advice before deadlines expire.
Knowledge check
Check your understanding
Six questions on Informal, formal and speaking-up routes test process and practical judgement. This is educational: it does not assess your health, evidence sufficiency or decide a legal issue.
Question 1 of 6
Choose one answer to continue.
Recommended workbooks
Use these privately and remove identifiable clinical information.
Check the source
Official and professional guidance
Open the current source and note the jurisdiction before applying it.
Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance proceduresGreat Britain ↗NHS England Freedom to Speak Up policyEngland ↗Speaking up Safely: a framework for the NHS in WalesWales ↗Independent National Whistleblowing Officer standardsScotland ↗HSC Northern Ireland: your right to raise a concernNorthern Ireland ↗
Page last reviewed 7 September 2026. General educational guidance, not an individual clinical, employment or legal assessment.