Student Radar
All articles
Health articlesSchool health operations

How often should an individual healthcare plan be reviewed?

Review individual healthcare plans in England with a seven-field worksheet covering review triggers, agreed arrangements, evidence gaps and owned follow-up.

Founder, Student Radar

Sources last checked .

  • Individual healthcare plans
  • School medical needs
  • Review evidence
  • Health data

An individual healthcare plan should be reviewed at least annually, or earlier if evidence shows that the child's needs have changed. That is the expectation in England's statutory medical-conditions guidance. The annual date is a backstop: staff should raise a change through the agreed review route when it emerges. Check whether the plan reflects agreed arrangements, who has contributed and what remains unresolved. A plan on file doesn't establish that those arrangements still fit.

This worksheet is for medical-needs leads, SENCos and school leaders in England. It supports a human review of school arrangements, without assessing clinical safety or certifying compliance. Individual decisions belong with the pupil's current healthcare plan, trained staff, local procedures and qualified clinical advice.

What the review expectation actually says

Paragraph 13 of DfE's medical-conditions guidance says governing bodies should ensure plans are reviewed at least annually, or earlier when evidence shows changed needs. The December 2015 document contains statutory guidance and separately identified further advice. It also recognises that not every pupil with a medical condition needs an individual healthcare plan.

Section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014 places support-arrangement and regard-to-guidance duties on the appropriate authorities of the maintained schools, academies and pupil referral units it covers in England. The section has a young-child exception; check the applicable early-years framework. DfE's July 2026 consultation outcome says the existing general guidance remains in force while revised guidance is prepared. The consultation hasn't replaced that framework.

Copy these seven fields into the review record

This is an original recording aid, with no official or clinical approval implied. Give individual entries an evidence state: verified against an identified source, reported by an attributed contributor, missing, or awaiting confirmation. A verified document is evidence of its recorded contents; it doesn't verify everything described within it. Keep disagreement visible.

1. Controlled version and source
Record the minimum pupil identifier, plan version, agreement date, last review and next review date. Link the authorised source and record who checked it and when. Establish which version staff are expected to use; retain superseded material through the school's record procedures. A recent upload date may simply describe a copied document.
2. Reason to review now
State whether this is the annual review or an earlier check prompted by evidence of change. Record the actual signal and its source: a family update, new professional advice or a concern about an agreed arrangement. A timetable, staffing or activity change may prompt an implementation check even when clinical needs are unchanged. Don't wait for the annual meeting to raise a concern.
Layered blank plan pages and a separate ochre source card beside a closed green record cover and magnifier.
Editorial illustration: check the agreed version and the evidence prompting its review.
3. People contributing and evidence considered
Record pupil and parent or carer contributions through appropriate communication, relevant staff observations and professional advice. Attribute each account and date it. Identify whose contribution is outstanding and who will seek it. DfE describes partnership in developing plans; silence or a read receipt doesn't establish agreement.
4. Agreed arrangements checked
Compare the plan with the arrangements relevant to this review: staff responsibilities, cover, access to the approved instructions, communication and participation in the school day. Reference evidence of the required training through local procedures. A staff acknowledgement doesn't establish competence or delivery. Use the medication-record handover checklist for the separate task of transferring a medication record.
5. Gaps, disagreement and uncertainty
Write what cannot yet be established, its consequence for the review and the person checking it. Keep an unverified report distinct from a confirmed change. Missing information needs an enquiry; it cannot be filled by assumptions about attendance, a diagnosis or what another adult probably meant.
6. Authorised human decision
Record who can authorise the school arrangement under local procedures, what they decided and the evidence supporting it. Identify advice still required from a qualified clinician. An operational reviewer cannot invent treatment instructions or resolve a clinical disagreement. Avoid an overall complete, compliant or clinically safe score.
7. Follow-up owner, date and closure evidence
Give each action a responsible person, a due date and a checkable outcome. State what evidence will close that action and who will check it. Record the next plan review separately. Closing a communication task doesn't establish that the whole plan has been implemented. The health responsibility map helps locate the school's ownership and escalation arrangements.

Read one invented record through to its next decision

Every person, identifier and circumstance in this example is invented. A review list shows plan R-24 isn't due for several months. The first signal is repeated recorded late arrival on one weekday. That pattern alone gives no reason to change the plan or infer a change in health.

Source: agreed plan version B, checked by the medical-needs lead. Annual review: not yet due. Trigger: reported difficulty with the agreed arrival arrangement. Parent account: awaiting confirmation. Timetable: verified change of arrival location. Plan implementation at the new location: missing confirmation.

The authorised reviewer finds a timetable change and a parent message asking who now receives the pupil. The message is reported evidence of a question, with its author and date retained. Together, these records change the enquiry from whether needs have changed to whether staff and family share the same arrival arrangement. The reviewer asks: does the agreed plan still describe the arrangement, and has the appropriate person checked its implementation at the new location?

The medical-needs lead owns the check with the family and responsible staff before the next affected arrival, following local procedures. The authorised decision-maker records any agreed school change and seeks clinical advice if the question requires it. This invented deadline illustrates ownership, not a clinical response interval. Any immediate concern follows the pupil's plan and school procedures without waiting.

If staff and family confirm the arrangement, the reviewer records the source, decision and communication outcome, then checks implementation as agreed. If accounts conflict or confirmation remains missing, the action stays open with its owner and escalation recorded. Attendance cannot prove causation, diagnosis, need, consent, medicine administration or safe participation. Acknowledgement cannot establish competence. An earlier review may clarify arrangements even when it produces no change to clinical advice.

An open blank folder, wooden staff marker, unmarked clock and separate round ochre tile beside a paper track with a circular gap.
Editorial illustration: keep an unanswered action attached to its owner and review point.

Keep the evidence within its authorised purpose

Health information is special-category data. The ICO's guidance explains that processing needs an Article 6 lawful basis and an Article 9 condition. Don't assume blanket consent covers every use. Check minimum-necessary access to each source, including attendance and communication records, before joining information. Masked identifiers or small counts don't establish anonymity or lawful sharing.

DfE's school data-protection responsibilities guidance and processing guidance support checking the purpose and justification with the school or trust's data protection officer. Keep a route for pupils and families to question or correct information. Restrict copies and retain provenance when a record is corrected.

Where the relevant workflow is enabled and staff have authorised access, Student Radar's IHCPs workspace presents recorded plans, review status, contacts and protocols for a human review. Medical Needs provides linked health-record context. The school still checks current agreed arrangements, clinical advice, training and missing information. Explore the school medical records and care plans workflow against your access requirements.

At the next review, ask another authorised adult to read the record: can they identify the agreed version, the reason for review, the decision and every open action? If an answer depends on remembering a conversation, add its attributed evidence and owner.

Sources and further reading

Back to all articles