In March 2025, the Event Medical Association (EMA) published an explainer on the direction of travel for event medicine regulation in England, focusing on two linked developments: the intended expansion of Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulation into event healthcare, and the parallel development of a new Event Healthcare Standard (EHS) to define expectations and underpin future oversight.
It is now January 2026, around ten months after that EMA update, and one theme continues to dominate conversations across the sector: uncertainty. Medical service providers and event organisers alike are trying to understand what will change, when it will change, and what “compliance” will look like in practice. In such an environment, stakeholders may be tempted by premature offers of training and advice – at a price.
This blog shares what can be said with confidence from the public record, highlights what remains unclear, and sets out the practical implications for event organisers and medical providers.
The core shift: event healthcare in England will fall under CQC regulation
The policy direction centres on the regulated activity known as the treatment of disease, disorder or injury (TDDI). In simple terms, the government has been working to remove exemptions that have historically kept temporary arrangements for event healthcare outside the CQC’s scope. When those exemptions are removed as proposed, organisations providing TDDI at events under temporary arrangements will be required to operate within a regulated framework and register accordingly.
It is also worth noting that this is an England regulatory issue in the first instance, as it is tied to the CQC. However, the EMA noted that devolved nations may consider broadly similar approaches over time, which is one reason this is being followed closely across the UK-wide events community, as many event organisers and medical service providers work across the devolved nations.
First aid is not expected to become regulated, and that distinction matters. A key reassurance in the documentation is that first aid is expected to remain unregulated. The boundary between first-aid and medicine, however, is also where some of the practical complexity lies. If first aid remains outside regulation while TDDI becomes more firmly regulated, the operational gap between “first aid provision” and “clinician-led medical care” becomes more consequential for events. It affects procurement, staffing models, governance requirements, and potentially cost and availability.
The Event Healthcare Standard: an on-record target of mid-2026
The EHS is the missing piece many organisers have been waiting for. It is intended to define what “good” looks like for event healthcare arrangements and to provide a consistent benchmark for assessment. The Event Healthcare Standard is being authored by a group of clinicians and sector experts, overseen by a review panel.
Crucially, a published ministerial answer indicated an aim to publish the standard in mid-2026. As of January 2026, the most reliable position is straightforward: the EHS appears to be progressing, but it has not yet been formally published, and until it is, a degree of uncertainty remains.
Why the uncertainty persists: a public direction of travel, but limited operational detail
It is common to hear that the CQC is “silent” on this topic. In practice, the sector has had to piece together the direction of travel from Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) consultation documents, the government response, and parliamentary statements, rather than from a single definitive operational roadmap.
The DHSC consultation materials indicated an intention to implement changes in the 2025–2026 financial year, with transitional arrangements under consideration to allow the sector time to adapt. Yet key practical questions remain open, including how transitional periods will be structured, how responsibilities will be interpreted across different event types, and how quickly enforcement expectations will tighten once the EHS is live.
The risk everyone is watching: regulation driving a “downshift” to first aid only
One of the most important points in the government response is also one of the most concerning. DHSC explicitly acknowledged feedback that, rather than raising standards, a regulatory change could unintentionally encourage some events into commissioning first aid only (because it remains unregulated), even where a sensible risk assessment would support clinician-led care.
This is not a theoretical concern. The events sector is pragmatic, often operating under tight budgets and supply constraints. If regulated provision becomes harder to source or more expensive, there is a credible risk that some events will reduce the scope of the medical care. The challenge for policymakers, providers and organisers alike is to avoid a scenario where regulation narrows access to appropriate care rather than improving it.
Volunteers and clinicians: the practical tension that needs clarity
The EMAs March 2025 article also highlighted a sensitive operational issue: regulation is typically triggered by the activity delivered, not by whether the clinician is paid or volunteering. That matters because many events have historically relied on experienced clinicians volunteering their time. If TDDI provision is more firmly regulated in the future, it may not be realistic or lawful for healthcare professionals to volunteer their time outside a regulated provider framework.
This is one of the areas where the eventual EHS and transitional guidance will be especially important. The sector needs a model that supports governance and patient safety without unintentionally dismantling responsible, well-run volunteer involvement.
A note on “getting ahead” of incomplete legislation and standards
We also want to avoid a familiar pattern: a gap between intention and implementation being filled by overconfident advice and opportunistic consultancy.
A parallel often raised is Martyn’s Law. For accuracy, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 3 April 2025, and public discussion continues about implementation periods before the regime is fully in force.
The lesson applies well to event medicine: it is sensible to prepare, but not to pay for certainty that does not yet exist. Until the EHS is published and transitional arrangements are confirmed, anyone claiming to offer definitive answers should be treated with caution.
What organisers can do now—without pretending the final rules are known
Even in a period of uncertainty, there are constructive steps that will stand up well under almost any future framework.
Organisers can start by being clear internally and with their medical providers about the level of care being commissioned. If your provision extends beyond first aid to clinician-led assessment and treatment, it is worth documenting that rationale carefully through a medical risk assessment and recording how your chosen provider meets the relevant governance expectations. It is also practical to ask providers direct questions and keep the answers on file: are they CQC registered (and for what scope), what is their readiness plan if registration becomes necessary, and what clinical governance systems do they operate?
Just as importantly, organisers should be cautious about reacting to uncertainty by downgrading to first aid only unless that decision can be defended objectively. DHSC has already acknowledged the risk that this could happen, and it would be unfortunate if the pursuit of higher standards produced the opposite outcome in the field.
What providers can do now—without overselling certainty
For providers, the most credible approach is likely to be calm, structured readiness. Mapping current activity against the definition of regulated activities, particularly TDDI, helps identify where future regulation may apply. Reviewing governance documentation, medicines management, incident reporting and competency frameworks is also likely to be time well spent, as those building blocks tend to be relevant regardless of how the final standard is expressed.
In the near term, transparency will matter. Providers who are clear about what they know, what they do not know, and how they are preparing for plausible scenarios will help stabilise a market that is currently shaped as much by rumour as by documentation.
What to watch for next
The two milestones most likely to reduce uncertainty are, first, the publication of the Event Healthcare Standard (with an on-record target of mid-2026), and second, a clear statement of transitional arrangements for providers delivering event healthcare that fall within regulated activities.
Until then, the best approach for the sector is steady and evidence-led: keep risk assessments robust, select providers with credible governance, document decisions carefully, and resist commercial or social pressure to claim certainty before the official framework is in place.