PSP090: RRDN Risks and Issues Register 

Section C.12. of the Performance and Operating Framework describes "clear and transparent arrangements for...risk management" as being one of the key aspects of governance. It also states that, as part of its duties, the RDN Operations Board will "identify risks, issues and mitigations." It is therefore implicit that each RRDN should maintain registers of risks and issues (which may be combined within a single document), to which all RRDN Operations Directors have access. Further, the register(s) should support the RRDN Leadership Team in their risk management and risk response. The Risks and Issues Register(s) should be used to record and manage any risks and issues affecting the delivery of the contract with the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). 

For the purposes of its template RRDN Risks and Issues Register, the RDNCC defines a 'risk' as being 'an event that may occur that could affect a project or service. A risk can be a benefit or a challenge'.  An 'issue' is defined as being 'a challenging event that has already occurred or is currently occurring'.  

The template RRDN Risks and Issues Register is available to view by anyone with a NIHR account. If you wish to use the template, please download a copy to complete locally.  

It is acknowledged that:

1. Host Organisations maintain Risk Registers.

2. RRDN Leadership Teams are expected to maintain a Risks and Issues Register. The RRDN Risks and Issues Register should be submitted on request to the RDNCC.

3. Given the potential for duplication between (1) and (2), a RRDN Leadership Team may submit their respective Host Organisation's Risk Register in lieu of an RRDN-specific version. However, this is dependent upon the Host Organisation Risk Register conforming to one principle and subject to one caveat: 

• The Risk Register should contain material risks to and issues for the delivery of the Contract (including the Performance and Operating Framework). It is for for the RRDN Leadership Team to ensure that risks and issues deemed 'material' are added, reviewed and updated regularly¹;

• Caveat: Where the Host Organisation is considered to be a risk, and is not registered on the Risk Register, this risk should be managed, responded to, and documented by the RRDN Leadership Team in parallel with the Risk Register, and reported to the RDNCC as part of any Risk Register request.

¹ Regularly may be locally defined to align with other Governance arrangements, such as Host Board meetings.

If a risk or issue is identified which is or has the potential to become a cross-RDN risk/issue, then this must be reported on the RDN Risks and Issues Register as well as the local register used by the RRDN.

The RDN Risks and Issues Register is accessible by all Board members. RRDN Directors have the opportunity to discuss the risk register at the RDN Board, and there add/identify risks for further consideration. Other means of adding risks and issues to the RDN Risks and Issues Register will be made available in due course.

It is also acknowledged that an RRDN Leadership Team may wish to develop their own Risks and Issues Register for the purpose of monitoring risks and issues specific to the RRDN. The RDNCC has created a template Risks and Issues Register which RRDNs may use if they wish.  The template RRDN Risks and Issues Register is available to view by anyone with a NIHR account. The principle and caveat set out in Section 3 above also apply and consideration should be given to including sections such as those below:

Live Risk Description

• Risk ID: a unique identifier for the risk within the register;

• Date added: the date the risk was first added to the register;

• Risk description;

• Pre-response rating, including: 

  • Probability/likelihood: a numeric score representing the probability of the risk occurring. An integer scale of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in ascending order of probability is commonly used. The scoring scale used should be consistent with the Impact score (below);

  • Impact: a numeric score representing the impact of the risk should it occur. An integer scale of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in ascending order of impact is commonly used. The scoring scale used should be consistent with the Probability score (above); 

  • Score: the Probability/Likelihood score multiplied by the Impact score. Some people find it helpful to use conditional colour formatting on the score so that ranges of scores are grouped by colour (e.g. a score less than or equal to x is green, a score greater than x and equal to or less than y is amber, and a score greater than y is red.) The score grouping ranges by colour should be consistent with the Current (residual) Score (below). 

Risk Response

• Risk Owner/Mitigation Lead: the individual responsible for overseeing actions taken in response to the risk and updating the risk within the register;

• Mitigation actions outstanding: a summary of any outstanding actions to reduce the probability and/or impact of the risk; 

• Actions completed and/or ongoing: a summary of any ongoing or completed actions to reduce the probability and/or impact of the risk;

• Current Residual Rating, including:

  • Probability/likelihood: A numeric score representing the residual probability of the risk occurring given the risk response. An integer scale of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in ascending order of probability is commonly used. This scoring scale should be consistent with the pre-response scoring scale to enable meaningful comparison; 

  • Current Impact: A numeric score representing the residual impact should the risk occur given the risk response. An integer scale of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in ascending order of impact is commonly used. This scoring scale should be consistent with the pre-response scoring scale to enable meaningful comparison;

  • Current Proximity Value: Consider when the risk needs to be resolved by and whether or not the mitigating actions be completed before the risk becomes an issue? 

  • Current Score: the residual Probability/likelihood score multiplied by the residual Impact score. Some people find it helpful to use conditional colour formatting on the score so that ranges of scores are grouped by colour (e.g. a score less than or equal to x is green, a score greater than x and equal to or less than y is amber, and a score greater than y is red.) The score grouping ranges by colour should be consistent with the Pre-response Score (above);

  • Target Score;

• Most recent review date: The date on which the risk was last reviewed and the register updated as required.

Live Issue Description

• Issue ID: a unique identifier for the issue within the register

• Date added: the date the issue was first added to the register

• Issue description

• Pre-response rating, including:

  • Probability/likelihood: The risk has now occurred so review the last pre-response and residual  probability score on the risk register tab to determine your latest position and insert score. The score should reflect where you are now at prior to further mitigating actions being actioned.

  • Impact: The risk has now become an issue so review the last pre-response and residual impact score on the risk register to determine your latest postion and insert that score. The score should reflect where you are now prior to further mitigating actions being actioned.

  • Score: Multiply the Probability/Likelihood score by the Impact score. Some people find it helpful to use conditional colour formatting on the score so that ranges of scores are grouped by colour (e.g. a score less than or equal to x is green, a score greater than x and equal to or less than y is amber, and a score greater than y is red.) The score grouping ranges by colour should be consistent with your overall scoring  guidance and colouring.

Issue Response

• Issue Owner/Mitigation Lead: the individual responsible for overseeing actions taken in response to the issue and updating the issue within the register;

• Mitigation actions to progress/outstanding: A summary of any outstanding actions to reduce the impact of/resolve the issue; 

• Actions completed and/or ongoing: A summary of any ongoing or completed actions to reduce the impact of the issue and/or the probability of its re-occurring;

• Current (residual) rating, including:

  • Probability: A numeric score representing the residual probability of the issue continuing or re-occurring given the issue response. An integer scale of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in ascending order of probability is commonly used. This scoring scale should be consistent with the pre-response scoring scale to enable meaningful comparison; 

  • Impact: A numeric score representing the residual impact should the issue continue or re-occur given the issue response. An integer scale of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in ascending order of impact is commonly used. This scoring scale should be consistent with the pre-response scoring scale to enable meaningful comparison; 

  • Score: The residual Probability score multiplied by the residual Impact score. Some people find it helpful to use conditional colour formatting on the score so that ranges of scores are grouped by colour (e.g. a score less than or equal to x is green, a score greater than x and equal to or less than y is amber, and a score greater than y is red.) The score grouping ranges by colour should be consistent with the Pre-response Score (above); 

• Most recent review date: The date on which the issue was last reviewed and the register updated as required.

Sue Barry

Governance Lead

Email: susan.barry@nihr.ac.uk

Version 0.1

February 2025