-
Posts
1,191 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Mark Hughes
MembersReputation
118
Good
Profile Information
-
First name
Mark
-
Last name
Hughes
-
Country
United Kingdom
About me
-
About me
I am Patient Safety Learning's Business and Policy Manager. Prior to this I worked in a range of different roles for Alzheimer's Society and two Members of Parliament. I have a strong interest in reforming the social care system and improving patient safety.
-
Organisation
Patient Safety Learning
-
Role
Business and Policy Manager
Recent Profile Visitors
15,915 profile views
-
Content Article
This week the new Quality strategy for NHS-funded care in England has been issued. This has been published by NHS England on behalf of the National Quality Board (NQB), the principle national forum for quality across the healthcare system in England. The NQB brings together leaders from NHS England, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), arm’s length bodies and clinical leadership. In this article, Patient Safety Learning sets out its initial reflections on the new Quality Strategy. On Tuesday 14 July 2026 a new Quality Strategy was published by the NQB. This document is intended to provide a structured approach to making quality the organising principle for all NHS activity over the next 10 years. At Patient Safety Learning, we believe that improving patient safety in inextricably linked to this aim. The new Strategy builds on last year’s Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape in England. We agreed with the Review’s recognition of the need to coordinate and rationalise the patient safety landscape. However, we have also expressed concerns about some of its content. In particular, we contested its argument that patient safety has been significantly over prioritised in recent years at the expense of other aspects of quality. As noted in our response to the review, we do not believe the examples it gave provided compelling evidence of this. Furthermore, we strongly believe that you cannot build an effective, efficient and responsive NHS on an unsafe system. In the coming weeks we will publish a more detailed analysis of this new Quality Strategy; however, in this article we will share our early reflections on the direction and content. Where we agree and welcome its approach We welcome the publication of the new Quality Strategy and the opportunity that it presents to improve patient care, experiences and outcomes. Priorities We are supportive of the six priorities identified by the new Strategy, and particularly the inclusion of a specific reference to patient safety. The priorities are: Improving outcomes and reducing unwarranted variation across major conditions and priority groups through implementation of the National Cancer Plan and modern service frameworks. Making sustained improvements in maternity and neonatal services. Strengthening patient safety across all settings. Improving experience of care and restoring trust in NHS services. Reducing inequalities across safety, effectiveness and experience. Monitoring clinical and population health outcomes. Clarifying who is responsible and accountable for quality Given the number of organisational changes in recent years, we are pleased to see the Strategy provides a clear outline of roles and responsibilities for quality management among different parts of the health system. Identifying patient safety risks We welcome proposals to explore how artificial intelligence and other advanced digital technologies can help the NHS learn more quickly when things go wrong and identify emerging risks earlier. Updating the Patient Safety Strategy We await with interest the publication of a reviewed and refreshed NHS Patient Safety Strategy. Looking ahead to this: It is positive that there is a recognition of the need to integrate digital safety considerations into the updated document. We would echo comments made in by the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) about reviewing the Patient Safety Strategy with a view to bringing together quality management and safety management. The Quality Strategy rightly acknowledges these as different but connected approaches. We believe these should be brought together, as part of an integrated quality and safety management system. Where we have concerns Recognition and prevention of avoidable harm We are disappointed that in setting the context for this Strategy, the scale and persistence of avoidable harm is not mentioned. Given the findings of numerous public inquiries and rising clinical negligence costs, the omission of avoidable harm as a factor for consideration is a significant oversight in our view. We are also disappointed that there is also no explicit ambition to reduce avoidable harm, beyond the following statement: “Improving safety in healthcare involves reducing the risk of unintended and unexpected harm to patients, while recognising that all care carries some level of risk. It does not mean eliminating all risk or pursuing zero harm.” We have concerns that this could, understandably, be considered alarming by many, including those patients and families where harm is preventable but is not being prioritised. We also have concerns about how this approach sits along the statutory obligations of providers to provide safe care and treatment (set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 [Regulated Activities] Regulations 2014). National learning and improvement Patient Safety Learning believes that there needs to be structured systematic approaches to learning about the cause and contributory factors of avoidable harm. We need to better understand the action that is needed to develop solutions and improvement action in the NHS. Accompanying this, there should be capacity at a national level to: Share widely learning from investigations and learning responses to patient safety incidents. Intervene if necessary for the purposes of improvement. Develop solutions to improve safety and share these systematically. The Strategy does not appear currently to envision any such role for either the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), NHS England or the National Quality Board (NQB). The absence of this national capacity is a gap we also highlighted in our responses to Penny Dash’s patient safety review and the 10 Year Health Plan last year. Culture We believe there needs to be a transformative effort and commitment to creating a safety culture in the health service. We are disappointed that this has not been given greater consideration in the Quality Strategy, despite the ambition being explicit in the NHS Patient Safety Strategy. There are significant changes needed to ensure that there is an open and fair culture, with a focus on learning and improvement that does not blame healthcare staff for systemic failings. Organisations need to actively foster a patient safety culture, tackle blame and fear, and promote a culture of safety improvement. Areas we believe need further consideration Involving and engaging with patients and families We believe there is room to develop in this Strategy greater detail on how patients and families can be supported and involved in improving quality and safety. The Quality Strategy tends to focus on the role of the new Directorate of Patient Experience in DHSC and better use of patient feedback mechanisms. We believe there should also be a greater emphasis on listening to patients, families, including bereaved relatives. Their concerns can often highlight risks that organisations have not identified or before they are aware of them. The Strategy puts on a welcome emphasis on increasing transparency. We believe this should be accompanied by stronger commitments to ensure openness and transparency when harm occurs. This includes honest communication with patients and families following safety incidents—an ambition often stated but not delivered. Coordination and improvement We would welcome further information about the roles of: Regional teams “co-ordinating involvement and intervention where necessary”. System Quality Groups supporting the management of quality across organisational boundaries by identifying early warning signs and “co-ordinating system action required to improve quality”. If these bodies are to take important roles in these areas we would expect to see plans to ensure they have the appropriate capacity and support to function in this way. This is particularly important in the context of the changing roles and reduced resources with the current NHS organisational changes Monitoring recommendations There remain significant questions around how the NQB will undertake its new role maintaining and monitoring national recommendations arising from reports, reviews, inquiries and investigations. We understand the development of a new “recommendations hub”, mentioned in the Strategy, is already underway, and we await to see what this will look like in practice. There remain unanswered questions about how this will work and what level of transparency there will be around which recommendations are prioritised for implementation. This will be important given concerns which have been raised about how the transfer of HSSIB’s functions to the Care Quality Commission may impact the independence of future investigations. Questions about implementation The new Quality Strategy contains a detailed list of requirements, opportunities, imperatives and suggestions. However, many questions remain about what its implementation will look like and the impact this will have on patient and staff safety. At Patient Safety Learning, we recognise challenges organisations face in implementing changes in quality and patient safety. We have been engaging with organisations through our “What Good Looks Like” for patient safety, drawing on our report A Blueprint for Action. We believe this framework could help to potentially underpin significant elements of the implementation of the broad commitments in the new Quality Strategy. While the existing Strategy does include some specific activities, with broad timescales, we would expect to see more developed plans subsequently setting out how this will be delivered. This should be accompanied with details on the initial areas that will be prioritised and what key success criteria will be for delivering quality and safety improvements.- Posted
-
1
-
- Quality improvement
- Leadership
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Content Article
This strategy, published on behalf of the National Quality Board, provides a new structured approach to making quality the organising principle for all NHS activity in England over the next decade. Its purpose is to ensure people receive high‑quality care consistently across all NHS-funded services. By doing so, it aims to: improve health outcomes improve patient satisfaction with NHS services reduce health inequalities. It applies system-wide, guiding national bodies, NHS leaders, the wider healthcare workforce and partners whose actions influence the quality of care in local communities. You can read Patient Safety Learning's initial response to this here. The Strategy uses a definition of high-quality care based on the three core domains of quality: Safety: reducing the risk of unintended or unexpected harm to patients arising from the provision of healthcare. Effectiveness : delivering evidence-based care that optimises the outcomes that matter to people using services. Experience: co-ordinated, compassionate and responsive care, delivered by staff who are skilled, supported and able to do their job well. It focuses on improving performance across all three of these domains. Key priorities identified by the strategy The Strategy sets initial focus on where clear standards and the application of proven approaches will deliver the greatest improvements in outcomes, equity and value, based on current evidence. It notes that these priorities are not static, stating that as progress is made and as risks, outcomes and population needs change, priorities will be reviewed and updated. Improving outcomes and reducing variation. Making sustained improvements in maternity and neonatal services. Maintaining patient safety across all settings. Improving experience of care and restoring trust. Reducing inequalities across all three quality domains. Monitoring clinical and population health outcomes, Drawing on the 10‑Year Health Plan and the Dash Review, this strategy sets out ten enablers that support quality improvement across the whole healthcare system: Clarifying who is responsible and accountable for quality at every level of the healthcare system. Setting clear priorities to improve the quality of care while adopting a transparent, co-ordinated and value-based approach. Strengthening leadership and management capability to create the right culture and conditions for improvement. Listening to and working with people and communities on what matters to them. Using data to manage quality, inform decisions and support accountability at all levels. Increasing transparency, making the NHS the world’s leading healthcare system for public access to information on care quality. Developing and embedding technology to underpin quality management and improvement. Aligning incentives and rewards with accessible, high-quality and productive care. Promoting innovation and research to support continuous improvement in both clinical care and how the NHS operates. Creating a more co-ordinated and improvement-focused approach to regulation.- Posted
-
- Quality improvement
- Leadership
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Content Article
NHS Resolution: Annual Report & Accounts 2025/26 (9 July 2026)
Mark Hughes posted an article in NHS Resolution
NHS Resolution is an arm’s length body of the Department of Health and Social Care. It provides expertise to the NHS on resolving concerns and disputes fairly, sharing learning for improvement and preserving resources for patient care. It handles negligence claims on behalf of NHS organisations and independent sector providers of NHS care. Their annual report and accounts for 2025/26 reflects on the first year of their three-year strategy, Resolution Through Collaboration, providing an overview of the work of NHS Resolution over this period. Key points highlighted in this report include: There has been in increase in new clinical claims received, which totalled 15,236 in 2025/26 (up from 14,428 claims in 2024/25). 84% of clinical claims were kept out of formal court proceedings, providing earlier resolution for patients and healthcare staff, and saving costs. £3.2 billion was paid out in 2025/26 for compensation and associated costs on all of NHS Resolution’s clinical schemes (up from £3.1 billion in 2024/2025 and £2.8 billion in 2023/24). 40% (£1.3bn) of the total clinical negligence payments (£3.2bn) in 2025/26 related to maternity. This is a reduction from 42% in 2024/25. The estimated total cost of harm incurred in 2025/26 was £4.8 billion. The majority of this related to the main clinical scheme, the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts, which was £4.5 billion. NHS Resolution’s provision for future liabilities as of 31 March 2026 was £60.3 billion.- Posted
-
- Legal issue
- Complaint
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Content Article
This article provides an overview of an Adjournment Debate in the House of Commons discussing the implementation of recommendations from the Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape. The debate focused on the proposed transfer of functions of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). What is an Adjournment Debate? There is a 30 minute Adjournment Debate at the end of each day's sitting of the House of Commons. They provide an opportunity for an individual backbench MP to raise an issue and receive a response from the relevant Minister. Unlike many other debates, these take place without a question which the House of Commons must then make a decision on. Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape On 7 July 2025, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) published the findings of the Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape in England, chaired by Dr Penny Dash. The review looked at six specific organisations that were established to either assure—or contribute to improving—the safety of care, while also making reference to the wider landscape of organisations influencing quality of care. Its final report issued a number of recommendations, which included several proposed changes organisational changes: Transferring the functions of the HSSIB to the CQC. Closing Healthwatch England, moving its functions to a new directorate for patient experience in DHSC. Combining the statutory functions of Local Healthwatch relating to healthcare with involvement and engagement functions in Integrated Care Boards (ICBs), with social care functions transferred to local authorities. Transferring the hosting arrangement of the Patient Safety Commissioner for England to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Closing the National Guardian’s Office, transferring its functions to NHS England. Contributions from Bernard Jenkin MP This debate was tabled by Sir Bernard Jenkin MP. He made a number of points concerning the transfer of the functions of the HSSIB to the CQC. He said that safety management is intrinsic to safety and public confidence in other safety-critical activities, such as aviation, but is alien to NHS culture. He asked without HSSIB, which independent body will promote a coherent understanding of safety system management in health, and who is to hold the NHS and Government to account for safety failures. He stated his view that neither the National Quality Board (NQB) nor the CQC should control investigations. He noted that the Air Accidents Investigation Branch cannot be prevented from making independent recommendations by the Civil Aviation Authority, the Transport Secretary or airlines themselves. He asked therefore why should the NQB, which will be subject to political direction, be allowed to decide what safety recommendations should be made and what should be investigated. He highlighted that the Dash Review incorrectly states that HSSIB was originally established to look at specific cases or incidents of severe harm, but it has since broadened its work into making more systemic recommendations. He noted that it was always intended by Parliament that HSSIB should make systemic recommendations arising from the investigation of specific incidents or groups of incidents. He questioned whether the CQC in its role as regulator and compliance enforcer could also be an independent investigator. He said that the Dash Review also says that the CQC internal successor should collaborate through the NQB to agree the scope of any investigations it carries out and agree the recommendations. He described this proposal as a direct attack on the independence of investigations. He stated that the Dash Review fails to look at the comparative cost of HSSIB investigations versus the cost of public inquiries. He noted that HSSIB at the moment only costs £6.3 million per year. He suggested that to save money the Secretary of State should request that HSSIB conducts far more investigations into matters which he thinks are important, provided that he also provides the funding for the necessary capacity. An example he gave was that HSSIB, has conducted eight investigations into mental health suicides since 2023. Each was completed in a few weeks or months, costing a total of £850,000. In comparison, he noted that the Lampard inquiry into the Essex partnership university trust, also investigating patient safety concerns in mental health, is expected to cost more than £5 million. Contributions from other MPs Jeremy Hunt MP highlighted concerns that moving HSSIB into the CQC, which has a legal duty ot act on information it receives, creates a worry for people talking to HSSIB that the information that they give to it may no longer be protected as they currently are. Anna Dixon MP noted that recent inquiries into maternity services, infected blood and pelvic mesh underline that professionals and those working inside the NHS must be able to speak freely when things go wrong in order to learn lessons and that that this is only possible with an independent investigating organisation. James Naish MP stated his concerns about the abolition of Healthwatch. He noted that there is a strong desire to see independent patient voice maintained outside the system and that Healthwatch was established due to issues within health structures, including, notably, the Mid Staffordshire scandal. Jim Shannon MP emphasised the need for lessons learned on data collection, streamlined complaints and patient safety culture are shared with the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister, Mike Nesbitt, as health is a devolved matter. Rachael Maskell MP stated that there was a wider issue, which she felt that the Health Bill completely misses, around the accountability systems within the NHS. She stated that these reforms are not going to deliver accountability, but will weaken it, and as a result we will see more requests for investigations into patient safety. Government response Responding to this debate on the Government’s behalf, Preet Kaur Gill MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health Innovation and Safety, made the following points: The investigation function within the CQC will be expert and full time, and it will be able to conduct investigations in the same cheap and quick way that HSSIB does now. In future, there will be the same opportunity to use the CQC investigation function instead of needing a public inquiry as there is currently with HSSIB. The criteria for disclosing protected information outside the investigative function are set out in the Bill. Those criteria set a high bar for any disclosure—as high as it is currently with HSSIB—and the CQC will publish further guidance setting out much more detail. As the Bill sets out, the CQC will appoint a responsible person who will decide whether the case matches the criteria and whether it warrants information sharing outside the safe space. That person is likely to be the CQC’s chief executive officer. Dash reforms are not about saving money; they are about strengthening patient safety and patient voice across the system. She stated that the abolition of HSSIB and the transfer of its functions to the CQC play an important part in making the system of patient safety much more effective. The NQB has been revitalised by giving it a stronger role in providing a single, authoritative view of quality across the system. That will help reduce duplication, bring greater clarity to recommendations and ensure that effort is focused where it has the greatest impact. The purpose of these reforms is not to weaken investigation, but to strengthen the link between investigation, learning and improvement. The investigation function in the CQC will have autonomy to launch investigations into any part of the health system and will be able to make recommendations on any part of the system, just as HSSIB does now. There will be no barrier to an investigator finding out that CQC inspections are causing unintended harm. The Health Bill also allows for the investigation function to make recommendations to the CQC in its report, and the CQC would be legally required to respond to such recommendations. How to watch the debate You can watch the full debate here and find the full transcript on Hansard at the bottom of this page. Related reading Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape: Patient Safety Learning's response (15 July 2025) The future of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body: a recent discussion at the Patient Safety Management Network Is the patient voice fading? Reflections on patient safety in a changing NHS- Posted
-
- Leadership
- Regulatory issue
- (and 3 more)
-
Content Article
NHS England are seeking views from manufacturers and users of health and social care technology products to help them improve the clinical risk management standards DCB0129 and DCB0160. These mandatory standards protect patients by ensuring all health IT systems are properly assessed for clinical risks before they are used in patient care. DCB0129 sets out requirements for technology manufacturers and DCB0160 covers how health and social care organisations deploy and use these systems safely. This consultation closes on Friday 11 September 2026.- Posted
-
- Digital health
- Technology
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
Content Article
On the 23 June 2025 the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (DHSC) announced a rapid, national, independent investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal services. This final report highlights key areas of concern, identifies barriers to delivering change and sets out a robust package of eight recommendations aimed at delivering long-term systemic and cultural transformation in maternity and neonatal care. It builds on an interim report published in February 2026. The report makes eight recommendations aimed to address the systemic problems identified in this report: The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) must create a statutory Maternity and Neonatal Commissioner, introducing legislation into the Health Bill at the earliest possible opportunity, and appointing a Commissioner within six months of Royal Assent. DHSC, NHS England (NHSE), Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) and NHS trusts must take action to listen to the voices of women, birthing people and families within 12 months. DHSC, NHSE and CQC must drive improvement, within 12 months, of the quality, transparency, oversight and accountability of investigations and ensure learning is captured and acted upon when things go wrong. DHSC/NHSE must design a Modern Service Framework for maternity and neonatal services within 12 months and begin rollout within 18 months. DHSC, NHSE, ICBs, NHS trusts, the General Medical Council (GMC) and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) must treat racism, discrimination and inequality as a critical maternity safety issue – within 12 months, with work starting immediately. DHSC/NHSE must clarify existing system governance, oversight and accountability structures and improve the effectiveness of regulatory oversight within nine months. DHSC, NHSE, ICBs and NHS trusts must work with colleges, universities, post graduate educators and others to improve culture and teamworking, and strengthen leadership at all levels of the system and across professions within 12 months. DHSC/NHSE must deliver estates and digital systems that are fit for modern maternity and neonatal care with 12-month, five-year and 10-year investment commitments and implementation deadlines.- Posted
-
- Obstetrics and gynaecology/ Maternity
- Maternity
- (and 5 more)
-
Content Article
The Independent review of maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust was commissioned in June 2022 and looks at the provision of maternity and neonatal care at the Trust between 2012 and 2025. More than 2,500 families and over 800 staff have contributed to this review. It concluded that there were potentially avoidable outcomes relating to 444 maternity cases examined up to May 2025, alongside 76 neonatal cases. Key issues identified in this report include insufficient staffing and funding across perinatal care settings; the inability of staff to undertake even basic (often, mandatory) training; a persistent failure to listen to and believe mothers and fathers; and a corresponding failure to investigate, and therefore learn from, mistakes. The Review identifies 18 immediate and essential actions to improve care and safety in maternity services across England, which are summarised below: 1. Strengthening women-centred communication and informed choice All women must be provided with clear, consistent and accessible information throughout pregnancy to support informed decision-making. This should include information about labour and birth, pain relief options in labour, anaesthetic care for operative delivery, and the potential benefits and risks of different interventions. 2. Support a nationally agreed perinatal workforce planning methodology as a critical enabler of perinatal improvement at pace and scale Investment should be made in the development and implementation of a robust, evidence-based workforce planning tool across perinatal services. The tool should move beyond birth rates alone to reflect population complexity, including factors such as maternal age, co-morbidities, deprivation, acuity and service configuration. 3. National immediate and essential actions labour ward coordinator (LWC) role Implement a nationally recognised LWC programme for all Band 7 LWC midwives undertaking the LWC role. Provide structured opportunities and support to achieve the competencies and standards outlined across the six domains of the national LWC Framework. Introduce 360-degree feedback for all LWCs to support reflection, performance development and understanding of the impact of behaviour on the multidisciplinary team. 4. All trusts must support training for midwives in the use of speculum examination All Trusts must ensure that midwives are supported to achieve local training competencies to perform speculum examinations for women at any gestation of pregnancy, with clear escalation pathways for women in pre-term labour or those requiring immediate ongoing care. 5. Enhanced maternal care All staff caring for pregnant women must receive regular, structured multidisciplinary training to ensure timely recognition and effective management of the deteriorating woman. Training must equip midwives, obstetricians, anaesthetists, critical care teams and outreach services with the skills, knowledge and confidence to deliver safe, high-quality enhanced maternal care. National education programmes must cover key areas of maternal care and include the recognition and management of lesser-known but clinically important conditions, such as maternal ketosis, to ensure consistent, safe and excellent care across all maternity services. 6. Delivering safe, personalised and equitable maternity care through early risk recognition, coordinated care and responsive services All Trusts must ensure women receive the appropriate ‘safety-netting’ within their care, enabling them to access services and treatments, including the consideration of reducing barriers to enable to the provision of safe maternity care. 7. National standard for standardisation and recording of fetal growth risk assessment There must be standardisation of fetal growth risk assessment, management and audit across RCOG, SBLCB and NICE guidance, with clear concise recommendations on the choice of pathways and charts to ensure consistency of the approach to the reduction in stillbirth. All practitioners performing ultrasound growth scans should have training to undertake and report examinations to meet the standardised methods used in the recommended charts. 8. There must be a national standard and documentation for maternity triage and record keeping in maternity care provision Trusts must develop a robust method of training for midwives providing triage care. This must include minimum competency standards for telephone risk assessment, agreed pathways for mandatory attendance for review and a holistic review of physical, mental and social wellbeing assessment. Suppliers of Electronic Patient Record (EPR) systems must ensure there is a standardised national maternity handover tool that addresses interoperability gaps between Trust systems. All Trusts must implement the standardised national Maternity Early Warning System (MEWS) with clearly defined escalation pathways wherever they are being cared for. 9. Support the development and implementation of a structured assessment framework for the latent phase of labour, ensuring clarity when the ‘latent phase of labour’ becomes abnormal requiring escalation Develop and implement a structured assessment framework for the latent phase of labour, incorporating maternal and fetal wellbeing, the woman’s preferences and narrative, social circumstances, potential barriers to accessing care (e.g. language or socioeconomic factors), time of day, and distance from the unit when determining the appropriateness of admission. 10. All Trusts must define criteria for the safe use of telephone postnatal follow-up, indicating when telephone follow-up is acceptable or when face-to-face follow-up is mandatory The first risk assessment for this should be documented in the woman’s notes in the antenatal period (by 34 weeks gestation), and the risk assessment reviewed before postnatal discharge from the hospital, and after every postnatal community visit. 11. National standard for obstetric anaesthetic record-keeping All Trusts must introduce and use standardised approaches to key areas of maternity anaesthetic care to reduce variation and improve outcomes. An agreed minimum standard for obstetric anaesthetic documentation must be implemented. This should include routine recording of intra-operative pain scores and accompanying narrative log, particularly during unexpected or critical events. 12. Safe, accessible and comprehensive maternity anaesthetic documentation All Trusts must strengthen maternal anaesthetic and critical care documentation, ensuring it is clear, contemporaneous and readily accessible, ideally within a single unified electronic patient record. Documentation must capture all relevant multidisciplinary discussions and care plans, and be woman centred, reflecting the woman’s needs, preferences, and involvement in decisions. 13. Department of Health and Social Care/NHS England (DHSC/NHSE) should introduce and support access to coordinated multidisciplinary debrief and psychological support. DHSC/NHSE must support Trusts to ensure that maternity services provide timely, accessible psychological support for women and families following traumatic events. This must include clear referral pathways, adequately resourced specialist provision, and processes that proactively identify and respond to unmet emotional and psychological needs 14. Funding for implementation of maternity Patient Safety Incident Reporting Framework (PSIRF) DHSC/NHSE must provide adequate funding to address the systemic resource gap that prevents Trusts from operationalising new national policy, enabling women and families to experience safer, more consistent care, with improvement demonstrated through full implementation, audit compliance, and sustained delivery of required standards. DHSC/NHSE should develop clear maternity-specific definitions and guidance on patient-safety incidents to resolve national inconsistency in interpretation, ensuring women and families receive transparent and accurate reporting of harm, with improvement evidenced by nationally standardised grading and reliable national data. 15. Strengthened multidisciplinary governance and learning All Trusts must ensure protected time for multidisciplinary governance, review and learning. This must include learning from both adverse events and examples of good practice to support continuous improvement in the quality and safety of care provided to women. Learning from neonatal PSIRF investigations should be considered alongside maternity investigations, recognising the opportunities for shared learning across perinatal services. 16. Foster a compassionate, psychologically safe, and learning culture All Trusts must actively foster a culture of safety, compassion and respect across all maternity services. Staff must feel supported to speak up and raise concerns without fear of reprisal. Women must feel listened to, respected, and fully involved in decisions about their care. Trusts must promote compassionate leadership, a civil and kind workplace, and the use of positive feedback as a tool to reinforce good practice and drive continuous improvement. A psychologically safe and learning culture is essential to improving clinical outcomes, supporting staff wellbeing and enhancing the experiences of women and their families. 17. DHSC/NHSE should recommend and support recruitment processes and implement a consistent onboarding package for new starters Trusts must streamline recruitment processes and implement a consistent onboarding package for all staff involved in the delivery of perinatal care with named supervision and support during initial shifts. 18. All Trusts to ensure compliance, audited annually, with the NHS Records Management Code of Practice post-death care The report also notes that in post-death care, Trusts should cease the practice of conducting post mortem examinations anywhere except the mortuary. They should ensure all investigations or reviews into after-death care include an independent post-death care specialist. Nationally there should be statutory regulation of Anatomical Pathology Technologists introduced.- Posted
-
- Maternity
- Investigation
- (and 6 more)
-
News Article
National quality strategy facing ‘ministerial pushback’
Mark Hughes posted a news article in News
Serious concerns have been raised that the delayed NHS “quality strategy” does not “prioritise patient safety”, HSJ has discovered. The government’s 2025 10-Year Health Plan stated “we will revitalise the National Quality Board (NQB) and task it with developing a new quality strategy”. The plan said the strategy would be published by March 2026, but this goal was missed, as was a second scheduled publication date soon after the May local elections. Minutes from the meeting obtained by HSJ reveal that NQB members “raised concerns” about the strategy’s lack of focus on patient safety and mental health. They also expressed a desire for the strategy to set “clearer expectations for providers”. Read full article (paywalled). Source: Health Service Journal, 23 June 2026 Related reading In this blog, Patient Safety Learning and the Advancing Quality Alliance (Aqua) set out the need for safety to serve as a golden thread woven throughout the Strategy.- Posted
-
- Quality improvement
- Leadership
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
News Article
Ebola cases in Congo surpass 1,000 with 254 people dead, authorities say
Mark Hughes posted a news article in News
The Ebola outbreak in eastern Congo has now surpassed 1,000 confirmed cases, with officials reporting 254 deaths as of Sunday evening. Congo’s Ministry of Health confirmed 1,003 cases and 100 recoveries since the epidemic was declared on 15 May in Ituri province. Caused by the rare Bundibugyo virus, for which no vaccines or treatments exist, this outbreak was the worst ever in its initial month. Officials admit more cases are likely unknown, and the peak is still ahead. Contact tracing remains a key issue, with local authorities achieving only 55 per cent coverage. The outbreak’s patient zero is yet to be identified, and over 35,000 contacts still require tracing, authorities confirmed. Read full article. Source: The Independent, 22 June 2026- Posted
-
- Global health
- Infection control
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
News Article
Health minister apologises for 'evil' at Muckamore Abbey Hospital
Mark Hughes posted a news article in News
The health minister has once again apologised for what he described as the "evil" perpetrated at Muckamore Abbey Hospital in County Antrim. Speaking in the assembly, Mike Nesbitt said what happened was a " true scandal". On Thursday, a long-awaited report into abuse at the hospital said a number of patients suffered physical abuse, including black eyes, broken bones, bruising and excessive restraint. Nesbitt said the weight of evidence had provided a "watershed" moment for the treatment and care of the most vulnerable in society. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has said its Muckamore investigation is the biggest criminal adult safeguarding case of its kind in the UK. In the assembly on Monday, Nesbitt said the report "helps us understand the failings of the past, and provides a road map for the work needed to address those issues". But, he said, it was "vital that we now move forward as a health and social care system, and importantly as a society, into a safer, more inclusive and accepting future for those most vulnerable in our society". Read full article. Source: BBC News, 22 July 2026- Posted
-
- Learning disabilities
- Patient suffering
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Content Article
The long-awaited report into maternity failures at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS trust, the largest investigation of its kind in the UK, involving about 2,500 families, will be published shortly. Led by the senior midwife Donna Ockenden, the inquiry investigated stillbirths, neonatal deaths, maternal deaths and babies or mothers who suffered brain damage and other injuries between 2012 and 2025. In this article some of the families affected share their stories about what happened to them in Nottingham, and explain why this is such a landmark moment.- Posted
-
- Maternity
- Investigation
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
News Article
‘Ham-fisted’ IT rollout ‘threatens service disruption’
Mark Hughes posted a news article in News
NHS England is being warned that the planned rollout of a new “portal” for all NHS primary dental work could lead to widespread disruption. The NHS Dental Services Portal is proposed as a new digital system for managing all NHS dental contract administration, including how dental activity is recorded, validated and paid. It is being rolled out to modernise an old, fragmented process, with the aim of improving efficiency, transparency, and consistency. In an open letter sent to NHS Business Services Authority and NHSE, and shared with HSJ, the Dental Software Suppliers Association raised concerns about the speed of implementation being imposed. Read full article (paywalled). Source: Health Service Journal, 22 June 2026- Posted
-
- Digital health
- Dentist
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
News Article
NHS ‘can’t be sure more patients won’t be harmed’ at scandal-hit trust
Mark Hughes posted a news article in News
NHS England has taken enforcement action against a major health trust over multiple safety concerns, warning that it cannot be sure more patients won’t be harmed. The sanction means Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, in Greater Manchester, could be fined or lose its license to provide care if it does not improve. It comes after a string of serious concerns were raised about patient safety, including in its gynaecological services, after an audit of hundreds of cases at Salford Royal Hospital in 2024 found dozens of women, including cancer patients, were “harmed” after their diagnosis and treatment were delayed due to admin failures. Now, a damning document, seen by The Independent, reveals NHS England found the trust has been “unable to provide assurance” that it has a clear and consistent structure “that will ensure no further patients may suffer harm”. Read full article. Source: The Independent, 19 June 2026 -
News Article
Report on Nottingham NHS maternity scandal to reveal ‘horrendous’ failings
Mark Hughes posted a news article in News
The report of the inquiry into the biggest maternity scandal in NHS history will outline “horrendous” failings in the care provided to women in Nottingham. A catalogue of appalling behaviour over many years by staff at the city’s two hospitals – Queen’s Medical Centre and Nottingham City hospital – included racism towards mothers, it will say. The NHS is bracing itself for the publication on Wednesday of a report by Donna Ockenden on 2,500 cases involving babies and mothers dying or being injured, and babies being stillborn, while under the care of Nottingham university hospitals NHS trust between 1 April 2012 and 31 May 2025. The document will stretch to more than 350 pages. Ockenden, a senior midwife and expert in maternity care failings, began her inquiry into Nottingham more than four years ago, in May 2022. About 2,505 families – more than in any previous maternity scandal – and approximately 850 staff and ex-staff of the NHS trust have given evidence to it. Read full article. Source: The Guardian, 22 June 2026 -
News Article
AI's 'blind trust' problem puts patients at risk
Mark Hughes posted a news article in News
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes deeply embedded in triage and clinical workflows, experts are raising concerns about a growing “blind trust” where clinicians and patients alike defer to algorithmic confidence over independent medical judgment. Speaking at the HLTH Europe 2026 conference, panellists stressed that a person’s information ecosystem —who they follow on social media, the podcasts they listen to, and how they interact with AI — is becoming a dominant determinant of health outcomes. Speaking at the event, Patient Safety Learning’s Chief Digital Officer Clive Flashman defined blind trust in this new era as the moment a “clinician stops being able to think independently, independently judging what they see, feel, or hear, because the algorithm has told them something that they should believe or do.” Read full article. Source: Medscape, 21 June 2026