Sample policy · Sexual health

Partner notification policy (sexual health)

Statutory anchor: Regulation 12 (safe care and treatment), Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2936). This policy also engages Regulation 17 (good governance). The clinical primary for partner notification practice is the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) partner notification standards. · primary source

1. What the regulation says

Care and treatment must be provided in a safe way for service users. (Reg 12(1) (the headline duty))

assessing the risks to the health and safety of service users of receiving the care or treatment, (Reg 12(2)(a) (risk assessment))

doing all that is reasonably practicable to mitigate any such risks, (Reg 12(2)(b) (risk mitigation))

assessing the risk of, and preventing, detecting and controlling the spread of, infections, including those that are health care associated, (Reg 12(2)(h) (infection control))

Regulation 17 adds the governance duty under which partner notification outcomes are monitored:

assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided in the carrying on of the regulated activity (including the quality of the experience of service users in receiving those services) ... assess, monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of service users and others who may be at risk which arise from the carrying on of the regulated activity. (Reg 17(2)(a) and (b): quality and risk)

The full text of Regulation 12 is at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2936/regulation/12 and Regulation 17 is at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2936/regulation/17. Where this policy and the regulation diverge, the regulation wins.

2. Plain-English summary

Care and treatment must be provided in a safe way. The regulation lists the areas a provider must address, including risk assessment, risk mitigation, staff competence, safe premises, safe equipment, sufficient equipment and medicines, medicines safety, infection prevention and shared-care planning. Regulation 12 is central to CQC's safety expectations.

For partner notification this means the Service identifies and offers testing and treatment to the partners of someone diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection, in a way that controls onward transmission and protects the patient from reinfection, while protecting the identity of the person first diagnosed. The clinical detail (look-back periods and methods) follows current BASHH partner notification standards, which the Service must verify before adoption.

3. Purpose

When someone is diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection, their recent partners may also be infected, often without symptoms. Partner notification (contact tracing) offers those partners testing and treatment, breaks the chain of transmission, and protects the patient from reinfection. It must be done in a way that protects the identity of the person first diagnosed. This policy sets out how the Service carries out partner notification, sensitively and confidentially.

The Service must verify this policy against current BASHH partner notification standards before adoption.

4. Scope

This policy applies to:

5. Offering partner notification

6. The look-back period and which partners

For each infection the Service uses the recognised look-back period (how far back partners should be traced) from current BASHH guidance, and helps the patient identify the partners within it. The Service confirms the periods it uses against the current standards.

7. Methods of notification

The Service agrees with the patient how partners will be told, using the recognised methods:

Whichever method is used, the index patient's identity is protected. A partner is never told who named them.

8. Protecting the index patient

9. Recording and outcomes

10. Difficult situations

Operational controls to adapt

Roles and responsibilities

Partner-notification procedure

  1. Trigger partner notification from the diagnosis. Positive results that require partner notification are flagged to the responsible clinician or adviser on the day they are reviewed.
  2. Confirm the look-back period. The responsible clinician applies current BASHH guidance and records the period used and any clinical reason for varying it.
  3. Discuss safety first. Ask about coercion, domestic abuse, honour-based abuse, exploitation, age differences and whether any contact could increase risk.
  4. Agree the method. Record patient referral, provider referral or contract referral, the agreed timescale and what information the patient has been given.
  5. Protect identity. Provider messages to partners must not reveal who named them, diagnosis details that identify the index patient, or any unnecessary personal information.
  6. Track outcomes. Record partners identified, contacted, booked, tested, treated, declined or uncontactable, using agreed codes where the service has them.
  7. Escalate unresolved high-risk cases. Repeated non-contact, high-risk infection, safeguarding concern or serious risk to an identifiable person is reviewed by the clinical lead and safeguarding lead.
  8. Review effectiveness. Outcome measures are reviewed through governance, especially partner contact rates, treatment completion, reinfection and confidentiality incidents.

Records and register links

The partner-notification record should include:

Missed partner-notification triggers, accidental identity disclosure, unresolved high-risk infection and repeated poor outcome rates are opened on the incident, safeguarding, risk or improvement-actions register as appropriate.

11. Training

Clinicians and health advisers who carry out partner notification are trained and competent in it, including the look-back periods, the methods and the confidentiality protections, and are refreshed on a stated cadence. The Service records who is competent and the next refresher date.

12. Audit cadence

The Service checks, on a stated cadence, that:

The Registered Manager and the clinical lead review the results and record the improvement actions that follow.

13. Sources and further reading

This template is based on CQC's guidance for providers and managers, the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, and other topic-specific legislation and guidance listed below. It is a starting point for adaptation, not a substitute for legal, clinical, HR, safeguarding or specialist professional advice.

Original sources carried forward from this policy:

Source-pack stack for sexual health: partner notification:

Related reading

14. When to seek further advice

Seek specialist advice where the issue involves serious harm, safeguarding, deprivation of liberty, restraint, children, professional misconduct, controlled drugs, radiation, termination of pregnancy, infection outbreak, water safety, employment dismissal, DBS barring referral, or regulatory enforcement.

15. Document control

Version Date Author Changes
v1.1 2026-07-14 Verivius (sample) Added role ownership, partner-notification procedure, outcome records, register links and related reading.
v1 2026-06-10 Verivius (sample) Conformed to the Verivius policy standard: statutory anchor, verbatim Regulation 12 and 17 quotes, plain-English summary, source pack, document control. All original sections and source URLs preserved.
v0.1 2026-06-05 Verivius (sample) Initial sample template.

This sample policy template was issued by Verivius. It is a template, not a substitute for legal advice or the tenant's own policy-development process. Where this template and live law or regulator guidance diverge, the live source wins.

What good looks like here

Written from an ex-CQC inspector's chair, but the point is safe, well-led care your team can stand behind. Each row shows what strong evidence looks like, what thin evidence looks like, and where the expectation comes from.

Partner notification is the rare clinical task that asks a service to reach out to people who are not its patients, about a diagnosis that is among the most sensitive it holds. Done carelessly it can out the index patient to a current or former partner, or provoke a controlling or violent reaction against the very person who came forward to protect others. That is why the evidence here is not the contact-tracing statistic on its own but the identity-protected provider message, the safety screen recorded before any partner was approached, the consent captured for provider referral, and the incident opened the moment a disclosure slips. The look-back periods and methods belong to the current BASHH standard and its named source, not to a number anyone should recite from memory; the governance question is whether the service follows that standard, records what it did in each case, and protects the person's identity and safety while it breaks the chain of transmission.

  1. Every diagnosis that warrants it triggers partner notification, and a case stays open until the agreed action for each named partner is complete, so partners are actually reached and treated and the person is protected from reinfection, not just a conversation held and the case marked done.

    Strong evidence: The result-to-notification trail for a sample of relevant positive diagnoses: the positive result flagged to the responsible clinician or adviser on the day it was reviewed, the partners identified, the method agreed, and each partner's outcome recorded as contacted, tested, treated, declined or uncontactable, with the case held open until the agreed action is complete.

    Weak evidence: Positive results where no partner notification was triggered or the trigger cannot be evidenced, cases closed on the day of diagnosis with the partner outcomes still blank, or a run of cases all marked 'advised' with nothing showing whether a single partner was ever reached.

    The recognised standard from a professional or clinical body, such as NICE or a royal college. Not a legal duty, but the accepted mark of safe practice, and a departure needs a documented reason.
  2. Partner notification is carried out so that no partner can work out who named them, so a partner is offered testing and treatment as any other patient would be, without ever being told, or able to infer, whose diagnosis put their name forward.

    Strong evidence: Provider-referral records and the confidentiality script showing that messages to partners carry no name, no diagnosis detail that would identify the index patient and no unnecessary personal information, and any accidental identity disclosure logged and investigated on the incident register.

    Weak evidence: A provider-referral message that names the infection or gives enough detail for a partner to deduce the index patient, administration staff messaging partners outside the agreed confidentiality script, or a near-miss disclosure that stayed a corridor conversation and never reached the incident log.

    The recognised standard from a professional or clinical body, such as NICE or a royal college. Not a legal duty, but the accepted mark of safe practice, and a departure needs a documented reason.
  3. The index patient is screened for coercion, domestic abuse, honour-based abuse, exploitation and age concerns before any partner is contacted, so a partner is approached only once it is safe to do so and notification never puts the person at greater risk than the infection it is meant to control, rather than a name being acted on the moment it is given.

    Strong evidence: The partner-notification record showing a documented safety screen for each case before the method was agreed, with any coercion, abuse, exploitation or under-18 concern escalated to the named safeguarding lead and handled under the safeguarding policy in its own right, separately from the notification itself.

    Weak evidence: Provider-referral cases contacted with the safety-screen field blank, a disclosed history of controlling or abusive behaviour that changed nothing about how or whether a partner was approached, or a safeguarding concern noted in the case notes but never escalated to the named lead.

    The recognised standard from a professional or clinical body, such as NICE or a royal college. Not a legal duty, but the accepted mark of safe practice, and a departure needs a documented reason.
  4. The look-back period and notification method used in each case follow current BASHH partner notification standards and are recorded against the case with the standard named as their source, and the patient's consent and choices are captured, so the clinical decision can be seen and checked rather than taken on trust.

    Strong evidence: A sample of partner-notification records showing the look-back period applied and any clinical reason for varying it, the method agreed with the patient (patient referral, provider referral or contract referral) and any contract-referral deadline, and the patient's recorded consent, all traceable to the current BASHH standard the service states it works to.

    Weak evidence: Records that show partner notification happened but not which look-back period or method was used, a look-back period asserted with no reference to the BASHH standard it comes from or last checked against source years ago, or a provider referral run with no record that the patient consented to the service contacting their partners.

    The recognised standard from a professional or clinical body, such as NICE or a royal college. Not a legal duty, but the accepted mark of safe practice, and a departure needs a documented reason.
  5. Partner notification outcomes are read together through governance and change how the service works, so poor contact rates, reinfection and confidentiality incidents are seen as a pattern and acted on, not just recorded case by case.

    Strong evidence: Governance minutes tabling partner-notification outcome measures such as partner contact rates, treatment completion, reinfection and confidentiality incidents, with themes turned into owned, dated improvement actions, and the Registered Manager and clinical lead recorded as reviewing them.

    Weak evidence: Outcomes recorded in individual case files but never aggregated, a governance minute carrying a bare count with no theme discussed, or a run of uncontactable partners or a confidentiality near-miss that prompted no review and no change to practice.

    A legal duty. This comes from legislation that applies to your service, so meeting it is not optional. The exact provision is cited beneath the badge.

    Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, reg 17(2)(a)

  6. The clinicians and health advisers who carry out partner notification are trained and assessed as competent in it, covering the look-back periods, the methods and the confidentiality protections, so sensitive contact tracing is done by people who know how, not whoever happens to be free.

    Strong evidence: A competence record naming who is signed off to carry out partner notification, the training covering look-back periods, methods and identity protection, and the next refresher date for each, refreshed on the cadence the service has set.

    Weak evidence: Partner notification carried out by staff with no recorded competence in it, a training log that stops at general induction with nothing specific to contact tracing or confidentiality, or refresher dates that have all passed with no record of anyone being brought back up to date.

    A legal duty. This comes from legislation that applies to your service, so meeting it is not optional. The exact provision is cited beneath the badge.

    Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, reg 12(2)(c) (persons with the necessary competence), supported where relevant by reg 18

Last verified 23 July 2026

Spotted something to improve?

These are sample templates, not the last word. If you would change a wording, or want to help us confirm a detail, tell us and we will look at it.

Related Verivius content

Want help adapting this to your service?

A Verivius consultant can read your adapted policy against the live regulation and your service shape. The work fits inside a Mock Inspection engagement or a shorter consulting brief. A 20-minute conversation is the fastest way to find out whether the fit is right.

Get started free

Free to start, no card. A 14-day trial when you subscribe.

Last reviewed 10 June 2026