Jump to content
  • Posts

    224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Clive Flashman

Administrators

Reputation

30 Fair

Profile Information

  • First name
    Clive
  • Last name
    Flashman
  • Country
    United Kingdom

About me

  • About me
    I'm leading on the development of the hub for Patient Safety Learning. I have a background in patient safety, having worked at the National Patient Safety Agency from 2002 to 2007, designing and leading the development of the NRLS. So looking forward to sharing this bold expriment with you all!!
  • Organisation
    Patient Safety Learning
  • Role
    Chief Digital Officer

Recent Profile Visitors

24,903 profile views
  1. News Article
    Software developed in Cambridge is helping nine hospitals to prioritise care, saving lives and freeing beds sooner Hospitals are using artificial intelligence to select high-risk patients to go to the front of the 7.5 million-long NHS waiting list. Software trained on more than 200 million records in 46 countries considers blood pressure, age, respiratory rate and where a patient lives to give them a risk score. Its introduction is part of increasingly urgent efforts by the health service to manage record numbers of patients stuck on waiting lists for routine treatment. Many will be deteriorating while they wait. This month The Sunday Times revealed that thousands have died, gone blind or suffered serious injuries, including having limbs amputated, because of delays and failures in their care. The problem is costing almost £900 million a year in negligence payouts. The NHS last hit its target to treat most patients within 18 weeks of being referred from their GP in February 2016. Now trusts are experimenting with new ways to balance the risks of such large waiting lists after the pandemic. AI software developed by the Cambridge-based company C2-Ai is being used in nine hospitals in Cheshire and Merseyside; similar tools are being piloted elsewhere. The technology helps identify patients who have a high risk of deteriorating while they wait, or who might struggle to recover after major surgery. These people are given help to improve their health while waiting and can be prioritised for surgery sooner. Almost 1,000 patients have benefited from interventions such as health coaching before and after surgery. The approach has almost eradicated post-op chest infections and halved the rate of other complications. It has also reduced the amount of time patients are staying in hospital by more than four days — meaning beds are free for those waiting in A&E or others needing routine surgery. One of those who is benefiting is Tim Ashcroft, a 74-year-old businessman who was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in 2023. After six weeks of chemotherapy, Ashcroft, from Winsford, Cheshire, had surgery to remove his oesophagus and possible cancer of the colon. After the surgery he had a stoma — an opening in the abdomen — which led to a double hernia; he was put on a waiting list to have the procedure reversed. Ashcroft had lost five stone since the initial surgery. In October, the C2-Ai technology flagged him as a potential risk and he was given a referral to use a phone app, Surgery Hero, which provides tools for exercise, tracking food intake and mental health support. The app linked Ashcroft with a dietitian who helped manage his nutrition and maintain his weight. They also spoke to consultants to bring forward his surgery, which he is hoping to have in the coming weeks. “It gave me a sense that I can look after my health while I wait, and that’s important especially as waits are so long at the moment,” Ashcroft said. “If this is a process which can generally save time and save lives … I don’t think anyone would object to that.” Rowan Pritchard Jones, medical director of the Cheshire and Merseyside NHS region, said it was right for the NHS to prioritise higher-risk patients. “We really need to think more smartly about the risk that is sitting on our waiting lists,” he said. “Nobody gets better while waiting but there are certain groups of patients who disproportionately deteriorate while they wait — patients whose [mortality risk] might move from 15 per cent to 45 per cent.” According to Cheshire and Merseyside, 40 per cent of its highest risk patients — those living with a number of conditions or diseases at the same time — come from the 20 per cent most deprived members of the population. Pritchard Jones said: “We have patients to worry about here, patients who will do badly. Let’s think about stratifying patients by risk.” C2-Ai’s technology is not the only innovation being tried to spot patients at higher risk from waiting times. In Coventry, the cardiologist Kiran Patel developed an algorithm to identify patients who had higher clinical risks and underlying social and demographic factors that meant they should be prioritised for treatment. It took into account whether a person had made repeat visits to A&E and whether they lived in a deprived area or had other health conditions. Patel, now chief medical officer at University Hospitals Birmingham, believes similar approaches could be considered there. “We know from the evidence that people are dying more from non-pandemic related issues and deprivation of care,” he said. “So that evidence is out there, and the fact that we have long waiting lists, and the fact that there are millions of people on there, would suggest that it’s inevitable some may be dying.” The approach is likely to prove controversial, particularly if it is used to prioritise patients according to factors such as getting them back to work. Jo Andrews, a consultant anaesthetist and chief medical officer at the consultancy Carnall Farrar, said: “If we look at the national challenge around people who are off work sick, we need to go after the things where it’s going to make the greatest difference. “That requires a difficult conversation with people, because you would be saying to the 75-year-old waiting for their hip replacement who can’t play golf, ‘Sorry, you’re going to have to wait a bit longer’, because the 65-year-old who can’t work and is the sole breadwinner for their family needs to take priority.” From The Sunday Times
  2. News Article
    Nearly 5,000 nurses, over 100 physicians, and advanced practitioners at Providence Oregon began striking Friday, impacting all eight state hospitals and six women’s clinics. Striking workers cite systemic understaffing, safety concerns, and job security fears due to Providence’s operational changes and private equity involvement. The Oregon Nurses Association (ONA) has accused Providence of refusing to bargain effectively, leading to the strike after over a year of stalled negotiations. Providence countered, claiming it offered nurses a 20% pay increase and accused the union of stalling. Governor Tina Kotek urged all parties to return to the table, emphasizing the disruption to patient care. Providence has hired 2,000 temporary nurses but struggled to find replacement physicians, consolidating women’s clinic services and reducing capacity. Providence leadership acknowledged challenges but expressed commitment to resuming negotiations once operations stabilise. Full article here.
  3. Content Article
    A set of 5 infographics describing the the factors that influence the risk of nosocomial transmission of infections (such as Covid19), and how health and care staff can take action to manage the risks and reduce the infection rate. The factors explained are: People Equipment Task Environment Organisation These infographics are from the summary HSIB report (22 October 2020) entitled "COVID-19 transmission in hospitals: management of the risk – a prospective safety investigation". The exec report can be found here. They explain the five main aspects related to the nosocomial transmission of infection, and how the risks of this happening can be properly managed.
  4. Content Article
    The advance of artificial intelligence (AI) has seen the emergence of digital diagnostic tools, with some claiming a more accurate diagnosis than a human. But what challenges does this present to patient safety? In this blog, Clive Flashman, Patient Safety Learning's Chief Digital Officer, looks at some of these new digital tools that are becoming  increasingly available not only to clinicians but also for patients, and highlights some of the risks that they bring and considerations that need to be thought through. This blog has been published as part of a series for World Patient Safety Day 2024 and the theme of Improving diagnosis for patient safety. #WPSD24, World Patient Safety Day 2024, WPSD 2024. Why diagnosis is important When you have been feeling unwell for a while despite the over-the-counter remedies that you’ve bought, you try and make an appointment to see your GP. Note that I said ‘try’; getting a GP appointment these days is a bit like a long distance run, with no guarantee that you will cross the finish line anywhere near the time you’d hoped for. When you do see your GP, they will draw on their medical school training, their years of experience, their knowledge of you as their patient (or at least what the medical record they hold about you contains) and, from all of that, determine what might be wrong with you. They might need some additional evidence before confirming that diagnosis—so they might request that you have a blood test or an MRI, etc. Once those results are back, you will be contacted again by the GP (or one of their staff) to tell you what that means for you. Was the original diagnosis correct? Has it changed? How will you be treated? Diagnosis is the starting point for therapeutic treatment The diagnosis is the starting point for therapeutic treatment. Get that wrong and, like a long line of dominos, everything else will fall out of place. We are reliant on this diagnosis to make our recovery (if that is possible) or to at least return to some form of wellness. It is pivotal in the patient’s care pathway and there are around 1.5 million[1] primary care consultations a day, of which 45% are with a GP. It is also critical that the diagnostic test is carried out and the results delivered promptly to give a timely and more accurate diagnosis. Sadly, as of May 2024, 1.66 million[2] people are on the waiting list for a diagnostic test—the highest figure since the current data series started being collected in January 2006. A new model for diagnoses In recent years, advances in AI have seen the emergence of digital diagnostic tools. Perhaps the most well known of these is Babylon Health, once valued at $4.2 billion, which collapsed in 2023 having already pulled out of the NHS contracts it had previously won.[3] Its main competitor for general AI-driven health diagnosis is Ada Health, which features a link to a medical journal (Rheumatology International) on its website that claims that “Ada was more accurate than physicians in suggesting the correct final diagnosis (54% of cases vs physicians' 32%)”.[4] Personally, I’m not sure that even a 54% diagnostic accuracy rate is that great, but compared to an awful 32% for human doctors, it is clearly an improvement. One of the most successful areas where AI has been involved in diagnosis is in the interpretation of medical images. Typically, two radiographers would review the same X-ray and come to individual conclusions about what is being shown, then compare those conclusions to make a final judgement. Studies have shown that where one of those radiographers is replaced by an AI equivalent, the diagnostic accuracy rate is at least as good if not better than before.[5] Many of these tools are for use by clinicians. They are expected to overlay their own judgement on top of the recommendations provided by the digital solution. However, increasingly digital diagnostic tools are being aimed at both patients and clinicians (Ada Health being the most obvious one). For example: MiiCare - blends smart home surveillance, an AI-driven voice assistant and vital signs monitoring to create a unique at-home virtual care solution. Healthy.io – offers standardised digital wound management services that help clinicians make better care decisions using the smartphone camera to accurately capture wounds and analyse their progress. Qure.ai – uses AI algorithms for medical imaging to identify and localise abnormalities on X-rays, MRI and CT scans. Odin Vision – helps clinicians to detect and diagnose polyps during colonoscopy procedures. PocDoc – looks to leverage the ubiquity of smartphones, turning them into personal diagnostic devices able to detect a range of major diseases from a pinprick of blood. Zio by iRhythm – helps clinicians and patients to quickly spot and confirm heart arrythmias. Binah.ai – uses the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyses the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. Canary Speech – uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyse patients’ voices for mental health conditions. eMoodie Minds – a digital-first mental health assessment tool. Feebris – used with a digital stethoscope for earlier diagnosis of childhood pneumonia. Home: the new setting for diagnostic tests With the increasing availability of home-based tests from companies such as Thriva, PocDoc, Pinpoint (blood testing) and Healthy.io (urinalysis) —which can all link to smartphone apps to leverage AI algorithms, potentially support diagnoses and track conditions — diagnostic testing at home is becoming more prevalent. This frees up clinician time and clinic space. However, it relies on the patient to perform the test accurately and submit the reading in a complete, timely and accurate manner. Regulatory and ethical guardrails There are a significant number of hurdles that digital health technology suppliers in the UK have to jump before their solutions can be used by doctors or patients. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) sets strict guidance on the evidence that is required and, in some cases, software will be classed as a medical device[6] and treated with the same regulatory rigour. NICE expects digital health technologies to have involved patients and healthcare professionals in their design and testing, and also to have gathered increasing amounts of evidence about efficacy.[7] This can be anything from a simple impact evaluation to a full randomised control trial, depending on the level of clinical judgement and recommendations the digital solution will be providing. NHS England demands that all NHS buyers of digital health technologies will complete a clinical safety case[9] for each solution they buy and also to complete the DTAC (Digital Technology Assessment Criteria), which considers: clinical safety (again) data protection clinical assurance interoperability usability and accessibility. Challenges However, patients are not trained how to interpret health data[8] and are also potentially at risk if seeing a diagnosis for the first time without adequate support in place. People who are newly diagnosed with a condition generally want to talk it through with a clinician, discuss treatment options, understand the impact it may have on their lives. Being left alone with your diagnosis, and having to then proactively make appointments to discuss it, is not what patient groups might consider the best approach to patient-centred care. Passive data collection, such as through a clinically certified wearable device or skin patch, can be relied upon to provide reasonably accurate data. However, where the patient is expected to conduct their own diagnostic test using their phone, or gathering blood or urine, the reliability of the data collected might be lower. There are also people who are not able to use these types of technologies or tests at home. They may be one of a group of people who are digitally excluded or have impairments (fine motor skills, cognition, visual, etc.) that mean that they cannot use the necessary items. In the same way that many people hate the push by supermarkets to move to self-checkouts where the burden is placed on the shopper to scan their own goods, some people also recoil at the thought of having to do their own medical tests and interpret the results. Conclusion It is inevitable that we will move to see more digital health diagnostics used by healthcare professionals and patients. However, we should not forget that this will not be appropriate for some people and offer other options for them to gain a formal diagnosis. People using digital diagnostic tools should be able to call on support where they need it and the guardrails that we have in place should be continuously reviewed so that they deal with new and innovative technologies before they cause significant harm to users. It is my view that these tools should be smart enough to recognise when a new (significant) diagnosis has been given to the patient and, in those cases, immediately contact a clinician to advise that support should be provided. If that cannot be done, then new diagnoses of this nature should not be communicated directly to a patient. References BMA. Pressures in general practice data analysis, 26 July 2024. Kirk-Wade E, Harker R, Stiebahl S. NHS key statistics: England. House of Commons Library, 16 July 2024. The Fall of Babylon Is a Warning for AI Unicorns. Wired, 19 September 2023. Graf M, Knitza J, Leipe J, et al. Comparison of physician and artificial intelligence-based symptom checker diagnostic accuracy. Rheum Int, 2022:42(12):2167-2176. doi: 10.1007/s00296-022-05202-4. Epub 2022 Sep 10. King's College London. AI trained on X-rays can diagnose medical issues as accurately as doctors, 11 December 2023. MHRA. Guidance. Software and AI as a Medical Device Change Programme - Roadmap. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, 14 June 2023. NICE. Evidence standards framework (ESF) for digital health technologies. NIHR Evidence: Health information: are you getting your message across? June 2022; doi: 10.3310/nihrevidence_51109 NHS England. Digital clinical safety assurance, v 1.1, 28 July 2023. Share your insights What do you think about the digital developments in health that Clive talked about in this blog? Do you have an experience to share as a patient, or as someone who works in this area? If you'd like to share your insights around digital health and patient safety, get in touch with the team at [email protected]. Have you been affected by a late diagnosis? Or perhaps you have insights to share on diagnostic safety through the work that you do. If you would like to write a blog or share your thoughts, experiences or resources through the hub please get in touch with our team at [email protected] or add your comments to our community forum page.
  5. Content Article Comment
    I think it's a good idea but it won't work without the infrastructure to support it and possibly a Citizen ID card. The paper seems to be regurgitating ideas from Estonia etc. without the basics in place to make it happen. If Lord Darzi advocates this within his review there will be a lot of pushback. It will cost significant chunks of money to put the 'basics' in place, which the Government can't seem to afford at the moment. The other key thing that the paper doesn't make as explicit as it should is that the Digital Health Record should be owned by THE PATIENT.
  6. News Article
    C2.AI has formally launched its Maternity and Neonatal Observatory at the NHS ConfedExpo in Manchester (Government and Public Sector Journal). The observatory is intended to give hospitals and clinicians a detailed picture of the performance of maternity units and the health trajectories of individual women, so areas of concern can be identified and acted on. The system works by calculating and comparing observed outcomes for women and babies with expected outcomes for these individuals. To do this, it uses AI and machine learning to assess clinical factors, case-mix, and the social determinants of health. Early adopters within the NHS, where maternity services are under intense scrutiny, are expected soon.
  7. News Article
    Female health monitoring apps are putting women at risk by "coercing" them into disclosing - and then poorly handling - highly sensitive data, according to new research. The study examined the privacy policies and data safety labels of 20 of the most popular of these kind of apps, which are commonly used to help women conceive. It found a host of poor data-management practices, including some apps not having a delete function, even for highly personal information such as menstrual cycles and miscarriages. Its authors say it is the most extensive evaluation its kind completed to date. They say the apps are used by hundreds of millions of people. The BBC has contacted a number of app providers - none have responded to a request for comment. "While female health apps are vital to the management of women’s health worldwide, their benefits are currently being undermined by privacy and safety issues," the lead author of the study, Dr Ruba Abu-Salma, from King's College London, told the BBC. Other key findings from the study include: 35% of apps claimed not to share personal data with third parties but contradicted this in their privacy policies 50% assured users that health data would not be shared with advertisers, but were ambiguous about other data collected 45% of privacy policies denied responsibility for third-party practices, despite claiming to vet them. Female-focused technology has boomed in recent years, with the market expected to exceed $75 billion by 2025. But Lisa Malki, another of the study's authors, said the industry needed to get better at protecting the women whose data it was using. Read full article on the BBC here.
  8. Community Post
    Hi, we at patient Safety Learning are looking to hold a virtual round table in the last week of June to look at how to improve patient safety related to the implementation of EPRs. If you are a clinician who has been directly involved with the roll out of an EPR, then you could be part of the event. All notes taken at the event will follow Chatham House rules and your participation will not be disclosed outside the round table group if that is your preference. If you'd like to be involved, please contact me (Clive Flashman) directly at [email protected] Many thanks, Clive
  9. News Article
    One of the best doctors in the UK died on an understaffed Manchester hospital ward after falling sick with a condition he was an expert in treating, an inquest has heard. Professor Amit Patel was among the ‘best doctors in the UK’, the first person in the country to be qualified in stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy, and intensive care medicine. He was also a beloved husband and father-of-two. “He looked liked a corpse, 70 per cent of his blood was in his lungs, he was freezing cold and he looked like he was dead," his heartbroken wife told an inquest at Manchester Coroners Court. "I told my daughters, ‘daddy is dead’ – I didn’t have much hope he would be able to come out of that.” Professor Patel's condition was being investigated by doctors at Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester Royal Infirmary, and across the country. But, he was in the unimaginable position of being a nationally recognised expert in the illness. During his career, he had formed ‘national guidance’ on the illness and sat on the national multi-disciplinary panel to which the most serious cases, including his own, were referred. The court heard how he was experiencing the symptoms of hemophagocytic lymph histiocytosis (HLH) – a rare and life-threatening immune disorder where the body reacts inappropriately to a 'trigger’, such as an infection or cancer, and leads to inflammation. Patients can be predisposed to HLH by Still’s disease, another rare autoimmune condition also causing inflammation, which Professor Patel was suspected to have had. Full article here.
  10. News Article
    Presymptom Health’s technology provides early and reliable information about infection status and severity in patients with non-specific symptoms, helping doctors make better treatment decisions. The company’s tests can be run on NHS PCR platforms, which were widely deployed during the COVID pandemic and are now often under-utilised. By detecting true infection and sepsis earlier, it’s possible to save lives and significantly reduce the incorrect use of antibiotics. When it comes to sepsis, Presymptom’s technology could revolutionise treatment. According to The UK Sepsis Trust, every 3 seconds, someone in the world dies of sepsis. In the UK alone, 245,000 people are affected by sepsis with at least 48,000 people losing their lives in sepsis-related illnesses every year. This is more than breast, bowel and prostate cancer combined. When diagnosed at a late stage, the likelihood of death increases by 10% for every hour left untreated. Yet, for many patients, with early diagnosis it is easily treatable. “We’re confident that our first product can play a big part in tackling Anti-Microbial Resistance (AMR), which has been identified by the World Health Organisation as one of the top 10 global public health threats,” said Dr Iain Miller, CEO of Presymptom Health. “By understanding the presence, or absence, of infection as early as possible, doctors can be more confident in their diagnosis and avoid unnecessarily prescribing antibiotics – something that is a growing concern in the NHS and globally. “If we take Sepsis as an example. Sepsis diagnostics hasn’t moved on in more than a century, and currently doctors can only diagnose it when advanced symptoms and organ failure are present – which is often too late. Our technology enables doctors to diagnose both infection and sepsis up to three days before formal clinical diagnosis, radically transforming the process and preventing unnecessary deaths. The science behind Presymptom’s technology is based upon 10 years of work conducted at Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) and originated from £16m of sustained Ministry of Defence investment in a programme of research designed to help service personnel survive infection from combat injuries. The technology is currently undergoing clinical trials at nine NHS hospitals in the UK, with results anticipated later in 2024. In addition, Presymptom is working on additional UK and EU trials.
  11. Content Article Comment
    Hi @Kenny Fraser, thanks for taking the time to respond. Yes, not having an EPR is definitely risky as it precludes the sharing of information, certainly within a single organisation. In terms of an assessment, I would guess that something like that was done at the beginning of the National Programme for IT back in 2003, but I've not seen anything more recently. With regard to benefits realisation, this is a useful document to look at: https://www.ouh.nhs.uk/patient-guide/documents/epr-case-study.pdf In terms of the safety reviews that EPRs have to go through, as you can imagine, they are a lot more robust than DTAC. There is an extremely detailed safety hazard assessment that was created by Dr Maureen Baker and others as part of the NPfIT roll out in the mid 2000s. That is where much of the slimmed down DCBs and DTAC material has come from. However, there are limitations to the self-assessed reviews, and there will always be 'snags' picked up post implementation. My key worry is that this 'post-market surveillance' is not sufficiently specified, or generally done, and while DCB0129 and DCB0160 are meant to be repeated also as part of this process, that hardly every happens.
  12. Content Article
    NHS England recently issued a national patient safety alert to all trusts providing maternity services after faults were discovered in IT software that could pose “potential serious risks to patient safety”. In this short blog, Clive Flashman, Patient Safety Learning’s Chief Digital Officer, calls for a closer look at the reasons into this and what we can learn from it. Electronic patient records (EPRs) are a way of managing clinical information with the intention of making this information more easily accessible for use by healthcare professionals. In A plan for digital health and social care published in June 2022, the Department of Health and Social Care set a target that all NHS Trusts should have an EPR system by March 2025.[1] In November last year, NHS England announced it was on course to meet this target, stating that 90% of NHS trusts have now introduced these new systems.[2] Although EPRs have the potential to significantly improve patient care and information handling, there are also a number of patient safety risks associated with their implementation and use. In a recent blog reviewing the recurring themes identified through their safety investigations, the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) identified a number of these:[3] Interoperability – problems stemming from EPRs being unable to exchange or make use of information from other IT systems used by trusts. Usability testing of software – EPR systems being introduced without appropriate testing of how easy or difficult healthcare professionals tasked with using these find them to operate. Standards and standardisation – EPR systems in use not incorporating human factors engineering principles in their design to ensure they are the best they can be. The themes listed above have been highlighted in recent media coverage, including recently a number of patient safety incidents and a patient death related to the introduction of a new EPR at the Royal Surrey Foundation Trust and St Peter’s Hospital Foundation Trust.[4] Patient Safety Alert Euroking is an EPR provided by Magentus Software. According to an NHS England National Patient Safety Alert issued on the 7 December 2023, the Euroking EPR has been found to process information incorrectly — overwriting the existing record with new information and incorrect storage and display of safeguarding information, which could lead to “incorrect management of the pregnancy and subsequent harm”.[5] The Euroking EPR is used in the maternity departments of at least 15 NHS trusts according to information held by HSJ.[6] NHS England has said there is “currently no evidence of actual harm being reported as a result of these issues" and the Trusts involved have 6 months to deal with it. The alert tells Trusts to review their data within the system and consider if Euroking meets their maternity services requirements and is safe, looking at replacement systems if deemed necessary. However, what is unclear from this Alert is whether NHS England had already spoken to the vendor and asked for a fix to be created and pushed out as soon as possible. Commenting in response to the Alert, Euroking have said that they were working with NHS England on issues concerning the data fields in the system and have provided their customers with ”support and information”. More robust response needed At Patient Safety Learning we don’t believe this is an adequate response to the issues raised in this Patient Safety Alert. A more robust response could have involved NHS England having been clear about the changes that were needed from a patient safety perspective and, subsequently, having worked with Euroking to make these changes and then push out this fix to all existing users as soon as possible. If that had been done, this Patient Safety Alert could have looked quite different, focused on the need to update the software first by a certain date, then check each data field and add back in any overwritten data if still available. This would also mean that the need to potentially consider moving to a new system, a potentially expensive and disruptive change, could then have been a lower priority. Although this issue and subsequent Alert relates to a specific vendor and system, we also believe it would be useful for all trusts to check that the same issue is not affecting similar systems (all EPRs, not just their Maternity one) from other vendors. It would have been helpful for NHS England to have annexed their alert with a testing process to support trusts in this. References 1. Department of Health and Social Care. A plan for digital health and social care; 29 June 2022. 2. NHS Digital. 90% of NHS trusts now have electronic patient records; 16 November 2023. 3. Helen Jones. Electronic patient record systems: recurring themes arising from safety investigations. HSSIB; 19 December 2023. 4. Alison Moore. Patient died and 30 harmed after new IT system launch. HSJ; 11 October 2023. 5. NHS England. National Patient Safety Alert: Identified safety risks with the Euroking maternity information system; 7 December 2023. 6. Joe Talora. NHSE warns widely used EPR could pose ‘serious risks to patient safety’. HSJ; 8 December 2023.
  13. Content Article Comment
    That's great news @Chris W, would be good to share the results of that with the wider group @Patient_Safety_Learning
  14. Content Article Comment
    I am glad that the remit of PSPs has gone far beyond that originally envisaged by NHS E. This can only be a good thing. It would be interesting to collate this into a master job spec that can be shared across Trusts so that all can fully benefit from the input of their PSPs. Perhaps this can be done via the relevant area on this site @Claire Cox, @HelenH, @PatientSafetyLearning Team
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.