Jump to content

Search the hub

Showing results for tags 'Care coordination'.


More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Start to type the tag you want to use, then select from the list.

  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • All
    • Commissioning, service provision and innovation in health and care
    • Coronavirus (COVID-19)
    • Culture
    • Improving patient safety
    • Investigations, risk management and legal issues
    • Leadership for patient safety
    • Organisations linked to patient safety (UK and beyond)
    • Patient engagement
    • Patient safety in health and care
    • Patient Safety Learning
    • Professionalising patient safety
    • Research, data and insight
    • Miscellaneous

Categories

  • Commissioning, service provision and innovation in health and care
    • Commissioning and funding patient safety
    • Digital health and care service provision
    • Health records and plans
    • Innovation programmes in health and care
    • Climate change/sustainability
  • Coronavirus (COVID-19)
    • Blogs
    • Data, research and statistics
    • Frontline insights during the pandemic
    • Good practice and useful resources
    • Guidance
    • Mental health
    • Exit strategies
    • Patient recovery
    • Questions around Government governance
  • Culture
    • Bullying and fear
    • Good practice
    • Occupational health and safety
    • Safety culture programmes
    • Second victim
    • Speak Up Guardians
    • Staff safety
    • Whistle blowing
  • Improving patient safety
    • Clinical governance and audits
    • Design for safety
    • Disasters averted/near misses
    • Equipment and facilities
    • Error traps
    • Health inequalities
    • Human factors (improving human performance in care delivery)
    • Improving systems of care
    • Implementation of improvements
    • International development and humanitarian
    • Patient Safety Alerts
    • Safety stories
    • Stories from the front line
    • Workforce and resources
  • Investigations, risk management and legal issues
    • Investigations and complaints
    • Risk management and legal issues
  • Leadership for patient safety
    • Business case for patient safety
    • Boards
    • Clinical leadership
    • Exec teams
    • Inquiries
    • International reports
    • National/Governmental
    • Patient Safety Commissioner
    • Quality and safety reports
    • Techniques
    • Other
  • Organisations linked to patient safety (UK and beyond)
    • Government and ALB direction and guidance
    • International patient safety
    • Regulators and their regulations
  • Patient engagement
    • Consent and privacy
    • Harmed care patient pathways/post-incident pathways
    • How to engage for patient safety
    • Keeping patients safe
    • Patient-centred care
    • Patient Safety Partners
    • Patient stories
  • Patient safety in health and care
    • Care settings
    • Conditions
    • Diagnosis
    • High risk areas
    • Learning disabilities
    • Medication
    • Mental health
    • Men's health
    • Patient management
    • Social care
    • Transitions of care
    • Women's health
  • Patient Safety Learning
    • Patient Safety Learning campaigns
    • Patient Safety Learning documents
    • Patient Safety Standards
    • 2-minute Tuesdays
    • Patient Safety Learning Annual Conference 2019
    • Patient Safety Learning Annual Conference 2018
    • Patient Safety Learning Awards 2019
    • Patient Safety Learning Interviews
    • Patient Safety Learning webinars
  • Professionalising patient safety
    • Accreditation for patient safety
    • Competency framework
    • Medical students
    • Patient safety standards
    • Training & education
  • Research, data and insight
    • Data and insight
    • Research
  • Miscellaneous

News

  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start
    End

Last updated

  • Start
    End

Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


First name


Last name


Country


About me


Organisation


Role

Found 122 results
  1. Content Article
    No adverse event should ever occur anywhere in the world if the knowledge exists to prevent it from happening. However, such knowledge is of little use if it is not put into practice. Translating knowledge into practical solutions is the ultimate foundation of the safety solutions action area of the World Alliance for Patient Safety. In April 2007, the International Steering Committee approved nine solutions for dissemination: Look-Alike, Sound-Alike Medication Names (PDF) Confusing drug names is one of the most common causes of medication errors and is a worldwide concern. With tens of thousands of drugs currently on the market, the potential for error created by confusing brand or generic drug names and packaging is significant. Patient Identification (PDF) The widespread and continuing failures to correctly identify patients often leads to medication, transfusion and testing errors; wrong person procedures; and the discharge of infants to the wrong families. Communication During Patient Hand-Overs (PDF) Gaps in hand-over (or hand-off) communication between patient care units, and between and among care teams, can cause serious breakdowns in the continuity of care, inappropriate treatment, and potential harm for the patient. Performance of Correct Procedure at Correct Body Site (PDF) Considered totally preventable, cases of wrong procedure or wrong site surgery are largely the result of miscommunication and unavailable, or incorrect, information. A major contributing factor to these types of errors is the lack of a standardized preoperative process. Control of Concentrated Electrolyte Solutions (PDF) While all drugs, biologics, vaccines and contrast media have a defined risk profile, concentrated electrolyte solutions that are used for injection are especially dangerous. Assuring Medication Accuracy at Transitions in Care (PDF) Medication errors occur most commonly at transitions. Medication reconciliation is a process designed to prevent medication errors at patient transition points. Avoiding Catheter and Tubing Mis-Connections (PDF) The design of tubing, catheters, and syringes currently in use is such that it is possible to inadvertently cause patient harm through connecting the wrong syringes and tubing and then delivering medication or fluids through an unintended wrong route. Single Use of Injection Devices (PDF) One of the biggest global concerns is the spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), the Hepatitis B Virus (HBV), and the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) because of the reuse of injection needles. Improved Hand Hygiene to Prevent Health Care-Associated Infection (HAI) (PDF) It is estimated that at any point in time more than 1.4 million people worldwide are suffering from infections acquired in hospitals. Effective hand hygiene is the primary preventive measure for avoiding this problem.
  2. Content Article
    This King's Fund report focuses on the clinical co-ordination of care for people with multiple long-term conditions as part of a wider holistic approach. It outlines a set of principles on clinical co-ordination for commissioners and healthcare professionals that should underline a new approach to care for people with multiple long-term conditions. Key messages Clinical care should, by default, consider that people may be presenting with multiple long-term conditions. There are now more and more people living with multiple long-term conditions, and people’s health conditions rarely fall neatly into separate clinical categories. Current models of care based on isolated care plans and siloed service pathways lead to poorer experiences and outcomes for people and inefficiencies for service providers. Co-ordinating clinical care is vital for getting the right support for people with multiple long-term conditions. This requires changes in how clinicians work, and how commissioners support them. IT systems, information governance and physical infrastructure are all key enablers of clinical co-ordination. It is essential that clinicians understand why and how changes will benefit them and their patients, and that patients and carers are able to access the information they need for their own agency and control. Whatever configuration they work in, clinicians need to ensure that they have clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and should develop their understanding of each other’s roles to support more joined-up thinking. Training – including continuing education – is important to support this. Removing financial system constraints, such as changing incentives to align with effective care for people with multiple long-term conditions, is an essential part of future-proofing the system against poor-quality provision for the increasing numbers of people living with such conditions. Local service design needs to be co-produced based on deep population knowledge as well as drawing on clinician and patient perspectives; there is no one model for caring for people with multiple long-term conditions, but there should be shared principles such as good communication, holistic care and access to information. Prioritising the development of outcome-based metrics – in particular those metrics that consider the impact of care co-ordination across conditions – in partnership with patients will help to improve understanding of the approach to care that can best address the needs of people with multiple long-term conditions and enhance the overall quality of that care.
  3. Content Article
    This report from the Partnership for Change explores one of the most persistent challenges patients face: poor care co-ordination. It draws on insight from across the health charity sector to offer a clear and practical vision for improving how care is delivered and experienced in the NHS. The Partnership for Change is a collaboration of ten leading patient groups brought together and funded by Pfizer.  The report outlines a set of recommendations to help the NHS, and wider health systems, put patients at the centre of co-ordinated care. The report recommendations are to: Measure patient experience and act on the data. Make communication between healthcare, professionals and patients simpler, quicker, and more efficient. Proactively build a culture of collaboration. Take a holistic approach to care for long-term conditions. Related reading on the hub: How the Patients Association helpline can help you navigate your care Care co-ordination for people with long-term conditions: Patient Safety Learning’s response to HSSIB investigation #NavigatingHealth—Enabling every patient, every time, system-wide The challenges of navigating the healthcare system
  4. News Article
    Trusts failing to meet cancer standards may be encouraged to use a new tool on the federated data platform, HSJ understands. NHS England today announced the launch of the Cancer 360 tool on the FDP, which it says will help clinicians to “identify and address delays immediately” in cancer treatment pathways. In a media briefing attended by HSJ, NHSE said no trust would be “forced” to take up the tool. It said there would be “no questions asked” if another system was already in place and the organisation was meeting performance targets, such as the faster diagnosis or 62-day referral-to-treatment standards. However, there “would be a conversation” about the need to use Cancer 360 if a trust had another system in place and was not meeting standards, officials confirmed. Read full story (paywalled) Source: HSJ, 4 May 2025
  5. News Article
    An “immobile” patient was found dead after a trust discharged him home with no support and no means of calling for help, a coroner has found. Samuel Brookes, who lived alone, was taken home from Russells Hall Hospital, run by The Dudley Group Foundation Trust, and left in his bed without access to his alarm or mobile phone. John Ellery, the coroner for Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin, said in a Prevention of Future Deaths report sent to the hospital: “Mr Brookes was left unattended for two weeks until on the 22 April 2024 his grandson attended and found him unresponsive, wedged between his bed and the bedroom wall… When Mr. Brookes got into difficulty he could not raise the alarm or call for help.” The coroner found the hospital had sent Mr Brookes home “without rearranging his required care” and there was “no record or documentation or process to show or demonstrate that the care had been rearranged”. Read full story (paywalled) Source: HSJ, 28 April 2025
  6. Content Article
    The Patients Association and the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) have published a joint report setting out a bold new vision for reforming outpatient services in the NHS over the next decade. Outpatient care (planned specialist care delivered without an overnight hospital stay) is one of the most commonly used NHS services, with over 135 million appointments in 2023/24 alone. Yet for many patients, the experience is marked by long waits, fragmented communication, and a lack of coordination between services. Drawing on extensive engagement with patients, clinicians and NHS England, Prescription for outpatients: reimagining planned specialist care outlines five key ambitions to reshape the outpatient model: provide timely care by the right person, in the right setting, empower patients through personalised care and self-management, improve communication across professionals and with patients, use innovative models of care to avoid unnecessary appointments, harness data and technology to reduce inequalities and prioritise need. The report also proposes eight transformational shifts to how care is delivered, supported by five key enablers including digital infrastructure, workforce investment, and improved commissioning models. Collectively, these changes aim to ensure outpatient services are more efficient, equitable and centred around patients' needs.
  7. Content Article
    On the 10 April 2025, the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) published a report looking at how care is co-ordinated for people with long-term conditions. In particular, the investigation considered the role of ‘care co-ordinator’ to understand how care is co-ordinated within the existing workforce. In this blog, Patient Safety Learning sets out its reflections on the findings and recommendations in this report. HSSIB investigates patient safety concerns across the NHS in England and in independent healthcare settings where safety learning could also help to improve NHS care. Their latest report looks at primary and community care co-ordination for people with long-term conditions, specifically considering the role of ‘care coordinator’ in this context.[1] While language around the care coordination is varied, the role of care co-ordinated is defined by NHS England as follows: “Care co-ordinators help to co-ordinate and navigate care across the health and care system, helping people make the right connections, with the right teams at the right time. They can support people to become more active in their own health and care and are skilled in assessing people’s changing needs. Care co-ordinators are effective in bringing together multidisciplinary teams to support people’s complex health and care needs.”[2] In this blog we set out our reflections on the findings and recommendations in this HSSIB investigation. Challenges navigating the healthcare system Navigating the healthcare system in the UK can be complex and frustrating for patients, families and carers. At Patient Safety Learning we hear time and time again about the lack of joined up care and communication within and across organisations. Failing to share the right information at the right time can create significant patient safety risks. Poor communications, both with patients and between healthcare professionals, can result in misunderstandings and mistakes resulting in poor outcomes and potentially patient harm. In a recent series of blogs published on the hub, patients and their relatives shared with us the challenges and barriers they have faced when trying to navigate the healthcare system.[3] The concerns and issues raised in this HSSIB investigation echo many of the key themes we identified in our new blog series. Confusing communications HSSIB’s report refers to the case of a child prescribed anti-epileptic medication by a specialist hospital to reduce the number and severity of their seizures. It then details the difficulties the parents subsequently found in getting this medication through their GP or consultant. The parents highlighted concerns about the lack of communication between the separate services, with the report noting: “The parents told the investigation that they were ‘exhausted’ because of the effort they had had to put in over the years to connect services together, having to tell the same story over and over again, while having to provide care for their child.” Delays to treatment The investigation report also highlights the case of a middle-aged professional working man who suffered a stroke. He received hospital care to treat and manage his healthcare needs; however, once discharged he encountered significant difficulties when seeking appropriate support for his additional healthcare needs. HSSIB highlighted how he had told them it required significant effort from him directly to ensure the right level of care was maintained for his needs. Recounting his experience, the report states: “He said that these multiple agencies ‘all operate in their own silos’ and not as a team, and that ‘there was nobody to create that team [a cross-system team aware of all his health and care concerns]’. The way that he and his wife cope with this situation is that they ‘manage the team’ to connect the individual parts of the system and get the care he needs.” Impact on mental health HSSIB also spoke to a man in his late seventies who is the main carer for his wife. She has multiple long-term conditions that require primary, secondary and community care. Reflecting on the impact that coordinating her care had on their lives, the report noted: “The husband explained that his role of care co-ordinator had placed a considerable burden on him, which led him to ‘feel overwhelmed’. He said that because he needing to act as her ‘co-ordinator’ he was unable to spend time with his wife as her husband. He also described having to administer medication and dress his wife’s wound which caused her considerable pain.” HSSIB’s investigation also highlights broader areas of concern relating to the coordination of care in the healthcare system, again mirroring themes raised we heard from patients in our recent blog series. Difficulties sharing information The investigation highlights a recurring concern around problems sharing patient information and the negative impact of this on coordinating a patient’s care. It highlights both issues of digital systems in different organisations not being compatible with one another and other barriers, stating: “Healthcare professionals described the challenges in information sharing. Digital patient records could not be viewed across primary, community, secondary and tertiary care because information technology systems are unable to ‘talk to each other’. They also said that sometimes they were unsure whether patient information could be shared as it was ‘protected information’. This was a particular problem when trying to share information between health and social care.” A complex and confusing system The report also reflects more broadly on how accessing and navigating health and care services can be difficult and complex, and potentially overwhelming for patients. This was highlighted by examples such as this from the investigation: “A GP practice told the investigation that it had tried to put together an easy-to-read document explaining the care pathway for patients with dementia, including contact numbers and ways to access services. The GP practice went on to say that the system was so complex that it was unable to bring together all the information. It stated: ‘We are healthcare professionals and we can’t do this, so how can patients cope?’” Safety recommendations A theme that runs throughout HSSIB’s investigation is that there is a clear need and support for the role of care co-ordination. It highlights that while patients and carers can, and often do, themselves act in this role, when they are unwell or unable to do so a patient’s care can be significantly impacted. The report states that the availability of care co-ordination varies widely across the system. This is a particular issue for those living with multiple long-term conditions as there is no single centralised care co-ordination function to span across primary, secondary and tertiary care. Concluding its investigation, HSSIB recommends that: NHS England/Department of Health and Social Care, working with other relevant organisations, reviews and evaluates the implementation of the care co-ordinator role. This is to ensure that all patients with long-term conditions have their care co-ordinated and that they have a single point of contact 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to help them with any queries or concerns that they may have. The Department of Health and Social Care works with NHS England and other stakeholders to develop a strategy that ensures that all diseases are given parity and that all people with a long-term condition in primary, secondary, tertiary and community or social care have their care effectively co-ordinated across multiple agencies. This is to ensure that people with long-term health conditions have co-ordinated care plans with effective communication between services and a single point of contact for concerns or questions. Patient Safety Learning agrees that there needs to be greater time and investment into care coordination. On the first recommendation, we would note that seeking to ensure all patients with long-term conditions have a single point of contact 24 hours of day, 7 days a week, would be a significant shift from the status quo. This would require a clear commitment of both financial and workforce resources from NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to deliver. In considering how this might be approached, it would also be important to consider: How this can be flexible depending on the long-term condition in question. Different conditions will require different levels and types of coordination. Systemic barriers that result in many of the difficulties navigating the care system would not be addressed by implementing this recommendation. For example: – We would continue to have various digital systems in primary, secondary and tertiary care that lack interoperability (the ability of computer systems or software to exchange and make use of information). – Non-digital communication barriers that prevent cross-organisational sharing of information in the NHS, ranging from data sharing restrictions to cultural attitudes within organisations, would also remain. On the second recommendation we agree with the principle of this, that there needs to be parity for people with a long-term condition and an expectation that their care is effectively co-ordinated across multiple agencies. Poorly coordinated care is not only confusing and frustrating for patients but also creates safety risks that can result in serious avoidable harm. Concluding comments The challenges of navigating the healthcare system discussed in this report are not a new issue, but a long-standing set of problems that do not have a simple solution. Their impact on patient experiences and outcomes is exacerbated in the current environment, when our healthcare system that is under increasing pressure and in a “critical condition”.[4] Patient Safety Learning believes that care co-ordination should form an important area of focus for the UK Government’s forthcoming 10 Year Health Plan. If it is to achieve its strategic ‘shift’ of moving the future of the NHS from "hospital to community" this will require a healthcare system where patients aren’t simply left to "join the dots for patient safety".[5] This will require organisational and leadership commitment to take forward the issues raised in this HSSIB investigation. The needs of patients should be central to improving health and care services, actively listening and acting on their experiences and insights when things go wrong for safety improvement. References HSSIB. Workforce and patient safety: primary and community care co-ordination for people with long-term conditions, 10 April 2025. NHS England. Care co-ordinators, Last accessed 10 April 2025. Patient Safety Learning. The challenges of navigating the healthcare system, 24 February 2025. UK Parliament. NHS: Independent Investigation, Hansard, Volume 753, 12 September 2024. Department of Health and Social Care, Independent report: Review into the operational effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission, 15 October 2024. Related reading Digital-only prescription requests: An elderly woman sent round the houses How the Patients Association helpline can help you navigate your care Lost in the system? NHS referrals Navigating the healthcare system as a university student: My personal experience The challenges of navigating the healthcare system: David's story The challenges of navigating the healthcare system: Sue's story Share your story What has been your experience of navigating the healthcare system? What is and isn’t working? How does it feel as a patient or carer when you hit barriers? Has your health been affected? Share your story in our community forum or contact our editorial team at [email protected].
  8. Content Article
    People who have a long-term condition may be in contact with multiple health and care organisations and may experience harm if their care is not co-ordinated. This investigation focuses on people with long-term conditions and how their care is co-ordinated, specifically considering the role of ‘care co-ordinator’. It is intended for healthcare organisations, policymakers and the public to help improve patient safety in relation to co-ordinating care for people with long-term or complex healthcare needs.  Findings The NHS has produced a definition of the professional role of NHS care co-ordinator. However, there is variation in how this role is implemented. Other national organisations have different definitions of care co-ordination and care navigation, which can create ambiguity for people overseeing these roles. There is not a single person/role/organisation responsible for co-ordinating care for people with long-term or complex health and care needs across multiple health and care organisations. The health and care system frequently fails to support care co-ordination across multiple care pathways and instead focuses on individual diseases or issues. This can leave people who have complex long-term conditions with uncoordinated care. Accessing and navigating health and care services can be difficult and complex, and patients and carers would like improved service integration and care co-ordination. Patients and carers act as a central point for information and contact for providers, but when they are unwell or unable to do this, care can be impacted. People who are unable to navigate the health and care system can experience deterioration of health, miss appointments or their care may become delayed or forgotten about, meaning they may need more intense treatment in the future or longer stays in hospital. Patients and carers have to retell their health history to different health and care providers. They believe the system is not joined up and that information does not flow across health and care organisations, or that different parts of the system cannot access information from other providers. When patients are discharged from a health or care setting out of normal working hours they do not always know who they can speak to about any concerns or their ongoing care. Different methods of sharing health and care information can create an information gap, particularly out of hours and at the weekend, resulting in a situation where not all health and care staff have the appropriate information to make decisions. Patients and carers can feel exhausted, burnt out, frustrated, angry and guilty, among other emotions. Patients and carers physical and mental health may deteriorate because of the extra burden of navigating the health and care system. Patients and carers may disengage with the health and care system because they are exhausted and frustrated. This may lead to poor outcomes for both patients and carers. There are different ways of supporting care co-ordination across the system, some of which are assisted by the charity sector. Safety recommendations HSSIB recommends that NHS England/Department of Health and Social Care, working with other relevant organisations, reviews and evaluates the implementation of the care co-ordinator role. This is to ensure that all patients with long-term conditions have their care co-ordinated and that they have a single point of contact 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to help them with any queries or concerns that they may have. HSSIB recommends that the Department of Health and Social Care works with NHS England and other stakeholders, to develop a strategy that ensures that all diseases are given parity and that all people with a long-term condition in primary, secondary, tertiary and community or social care have their care effectively co-ordinated across multiple agencies. This is to ensure that people with long-term health conditions have co-ordinated care plans with effective communication between services and a single point of contact for concerns or questions. Safety observation Health and care organisations can improve patient safety by allocating a point of contact for patients and/or their carers when people are discharged from services out of normal working hours. This will ensure patients and their carers are able to escalate any concerns relating to their ongoing care and drive improvements in care co-ordination. Related reading on the hub: Read Patient's Safety Learning's response to the findings and recommendations of this HSSIB report
  9. Content Article
    We hear time and time again on the hub about the lack of joined up care and communication within and across organisations. Patients and their families and carers not knowing who to contact to chase up a referral, having to travel miles for appointments, missing appointments because the letter didn’t arrive on time, or having to repeat the patient’s history and medications to every new healthcare professional they see because the notes haven’t been shared or clinicians "don’t have time to read them all". These issues are widespread and urgently need to be addressed if we are to prevent people falling through the gaps and suffering worse health outcomes. In this blog, Sue* shares her and her husband's experiences of trying to coordinate the healthcare system and highlights the challenges and frustrations they continuously face. Difficulties getting a diagnosis My husband Neil* has a very rare chronic condition that means unfortunately he is not managed in the area we live at as it’s a regional centre some miles away. We live in North Yorkshire, one of the largest geographical areas in the country, and we feed into various health economies. It took over 4 years and three different healthcare organisations before Neil got his diagnosis. Every time we see someone new we have to go through all of Neil’s medical history again, and then they often say that it’s not their area of expertise because they only deal directly with one area or speciality; they don't think of the patient as a whole. Whilst waiting to get the diagnosis, Neil had a heart attack so he was initially treated more locally to us but it was still over 40 miles away from where we live. When we called an ambulance for a second time he was taken to a different hospital from the first one he was treated in. So he was taken to two different geographical areas not even under the same trust. To add to this, Neil is also under lots of different specialities, i.e. rheumatology, general surgery, dermatology, respiratory and lipids. So he is being treated and has appointments in numerous places. Coordinating appointments and results With all these different specialties, even if they are within the same regional centre, none of the information is joined up or accessible, including blood results from the GP. We find that things are incorrect all the time and we spend a lot of time trying to coordinate Neil’s care and following up on test results, appointments, etc. Neil receives appointments in various ways—emails, phone calls, texts, letters, messages left on his answer phone. You might get a phone call followed by a letter, or you could get a message to say ignore the letter. You may miss a call but you don’t know which department to ring back because it usually comes up as an unknown number. Recently, Neil received a text message which said he was on a waiting list, but it didn’t say what it was for or what specialist department it was from. It said in the text that if you no longer wanted the appointment and wanted to cancel it, to follow a link, but we had no idea what the appointment was referring to or where it came from! As a patient you want to have some control over your health and be able to see all blood test results, scan results and letters from the hospitals. For example, it would be so much easier to look at Neil’s medications and patient letters if they were all in one place but you can't look at the medical records to see what's been said. The only way we can get it is waiting for the letter to be seen by the GP and then, eventually, added on to their system, but it's not always quick because again it's a different geographical area and systems that are disconnected. As a patient with a new disorder, you’re not familiar with the system. Neil was referred to other specialities from rheumatology. Unfortunately, the treatment plan. including tests or length of wait for appointments, isn’t shared directly with us. We rely on my note taking to ensure everything is completed and followed up. Often we end up going to an appointment without the tests Neil needs to have done due to the length of wait for the test, or the test being triaged and cancelled but this not communicated either to us or the referring doctor. The waiting for test results at the moment are long for some of these tests but if it was in your capacity to be able to seek or understand when you might possibly get them, you wouldn't then end up wasting an appointment. You would wait until you've had the results back or know when it might be. It could take us over two hours travelling time for a wasted appointment. We don’t want to waste our time and the time of others. Lack of communication Neil has radiotherapy coming up shortly and we've had no communications regarding it. I ended up making a phone call to inquire and was given a date. But we’ve still not received a phone call, no email, no letter or anything about it, even though they've got the date and time in their books. You can’t make plans, for example if you are trying to go away for the summer. If you’re waiting for a treatment, which on the NHS may take a while, you want to know when to expect the appointment. It’s a lot easier to manage your condition or diagnosis if you have the knowledge of when something's going to happen and you can manage your own expectations. Navigating the various healthcare apps To try and help with all of this we’ve been really keen to try and find a way to get all of Neil’s medical information, from many different organisations, together in one place and to rationalise appointments. We signed up to the NHS app which then put us on to System Online and then Neil was directed to AirMid UK. We've also found the Patients Know Best app which has been set up and says that you can access all your records but it seems to be only if an organisation has signed up to it. So we’ve got four apps to supposedly access the information but not one of them has all of Neil's information. We are actively looking for an online place which has all the information but none of it ties up. None of the apps give you the same information. We’ve asked our GP but he couldn’t help and hadn’t heard of some of the apps we’d found. A system that isn't working These are just a few examples of what we’re dealing with. I’m lucky as I have some medical knowledge so I know when we're missing something or waiting for something and I will chase up, but not everyone will have this knowledge. If it’s an older patient, or someone who hasn’t got family to support them, then they are on their own to navigate a very complex system. A system that isn't working. *The names in this blog have been changed to ensure anonymity. Are you a patient, relative or carer frustrated with navigating the healthcare system? Or is your GP practice or Trust doing something innovative to make it easier for patients? We would love to hear your stories. Please add to our community forum (you will need to register with the hub, it's free and easy to sign up) or email us at [email protected]. Related reading The challenges of navigating the healthcare system: David's story The challenges of navigating the healthcare system: Margaret's story Navigating the healthcare system as a university student: My personal experience Lost in the system? NHS referrals "I love the NHS, BUT..." Preventing needless harms caused by poor communication in the NHS (DEMOS, November 2023) Robust collaborative practice must become the bedrock of modern healthcare Robbie: A homeless patient’s struggles with the system Digital-only prescription requests: An elderly woman sent round the houses Lost in the system: the need for better admin Digital-only prescription requests: An elderly woman sent round the houses
  10. Content Article
    Moving away from home and starting university has been a transformative experience. As an 18-year-old studying law and international relations, I’ve enjoyed the new found independence and academic challenges. However, persistent health issues have complicated my transition, leading to a frustrating journey through the healthcare system. My health struggles Since starting university, I’ve dealt with multiple colds and flu-like symptoms, some may call it ‘freshers flu’. A productive cough that lingered for over a month concerned me, but the situation took a serious turn when I started feeling dizzy and breathless with minimal exertion. Realising the severity of my condition, I knew I needed medical help. Seeking help: a series of missteps 1. Pharmacy visit My first stop was the local pharmacy. After describing my symptoms, the pharmacist suspected iron deficiency and recommended iron tablets. While this seemed plausible, my condition continued to worsen, prompting a call to my parents. 2. Exploring options: walk-in GP and NHS 111 My parents suggested visiting a walk-in GP, but I discovered none were available in my area. I then called NHS 111, hoping for guidance. They advised going to Accident and Emergency (A&E) but also mentioned they would request a GP call-back. Given the NHS’s known pressures, I was hesitant to visit A&E for what I didn’t consider an emergency. 3. Urgent treatment centre attempt My mum then suggested my local hospital’s urgent treatment centre. I mustered my energy to go there, only to be informed that I needed a GP appointment. They again suggested A&E. 4. Finally, A&E Feeling increasingly unwell, I headed to A&E. Although it felt like I was going in circles, this decision was crucial. At A&E, I was redirected to the urgent treatment centre where I finally saw an excellent doctor. I was seen quickly, diagnosed and given medication that soon began to help. A few days later, I received a message from NHS 111 stating that my request for a GP call-back had dropped off the system due to the delay. This entire experience has been eye-opening and frustrating. As a young and intelligent individual, I found navigating the healthcare system challenging. I can only imagine how overwhelming it must be for older adults, those with additional needs or those less familiar with the process. Lessons learned Navigating healthcare while dealing with a serious condition can be daunting. Here are some key takeaways from my experience that may help other university students or young adults who have moved away from home for the first time: Register with a local GP early As soon as you arrive at university, register with a local GP. It’s crucial to have access to medical care, especially when living away from home for the first time. Understand your options Familiarise yourself with the local healthcare facilities, including urgent treatment centres, walk-in clinics and A&E. Knowing where to go in different situations can save valuable time and stress. Persist and advocate for yourself Don’t be afraid to seek second opinions or alternative solutions if your initial attempts to get help are unsuccessful. Be persistent in advocating for your health needs. Stay informed about healthcare systems Understanding how the healthcare system works, including the pressures it faces, can help you make informed decisions about when and where to seek care. Moving forward Despite the hurdles, my health is now improving thanks to the excellent care I eventually received. This experience has taught me the importance of being proactive about my health and understanding the healthcare system. As I continue my university journey, I’ll be better prepared to navigate any future health challenges. If you’re a student facing similar issues, remember that you’re not alone. Reach out to university health services, friends and family for support. And most importantly, take your health seriously—it’s the foundation upon which all other successes are built. Reflections from my mother My mother, who is a healthcare professional working in the NHS, has had her own set of frustrations and concerns for me throughout this ordeal. She shares her own reflections on my experience: Frustration and helplessness Despite my extensive knowledge of the healthcare system, I felt powerless to help my child navigate the healthcare system from miles away. It was frustrating to be unable to fix the situation quickly and efficiently. Worry and concern Being far from home, I was naturally worried about my son’s health. The distance amplified my anxiety, knowing that they were dealing with worsening symptoms without immediate access to care. Concern for others I am also deeply concerned for other students and individuals who might be in similar situations but are not as vocal or persistent. How do they cope and navigate the system, especially those without a strong support network? Emotional impact This experience left me feeling upset and distressed. As a healthcare professional, I am acutely aware of the pressures on the NHS and the potential for patients to fall through the cracks. Seeing my own son’s struggle highlighted these issues in a very personal way. Are you a student or a young adult who has moved away from home for the first time? How easy have you found it accessing healthcare. We would love to hear your stories. Please comment below (you will need to register with the hub, it's free and easy to sign up), share your story in our community forum, or email us at [email protected]. Related reading The challenges of navigating the healthcare system: David's story The challenges of navigating the healthcare system: Margaret's story The challenges of navigating the healthcare system: Sue's story Lost in the system? NHS referrals "I love the NHS, BUT..." Preventing needless harms caused by poor communication in the NHS (DEMOS, November 2023) Robust collaborative practice must become the bedrock of modern healthcare Robbie: A homeless patient’s struggles with the system Digital-only prescription requests: An elderly woman sent round the houses Lost in the system: the need for better admin Digital-only prescription requests: An elderly woman sent round the houses
  11. Content Article
    We hear time and time again on the hub about the lack of joined up care and communication within and across organisations. Patients and their families and carers not knowing who to contact to chase up a referral, systems not joined up, lack of communication, having to repeat the patient’s history and medications to every new healthcare professional they see because the notes haven’t been shared or clinicians "don’t have time to read them all". These issues are widespread and urgently need to be addressed if we are to prevent people falling through the gaps and suffering worse health outcomes. In this blog, *Margaret shares her and family's experiences of trying to coordinate their elderly father's upcoming surgery. Interoperability issues My father has dementia and has a complex set of health issues, as a lot of elderly people do. He has a number of comorbidities, including vascular, heart, and cognition and memory problems, that has meant coordinating his care between the care home, his GP, the local hospital and a specialist hospital has been quite complex. There have been multiple issues but there were two that stood out. The first issue was at the diagnostic stage. My father has severe vascular problems and he needed fairly urgent and necessary surgery. In order to assess whether he was suitable for surgery, given his heart condition, he needed a scan. We have had problems in the past in getting access to scans on his heart so the GP said in order to move things on quicker it would be good to get the scan done privately. As the surgery was urgent, we paid to get the scan done at a private diagnostic centre. However, when it came to getting the information from the private diagnostic centre to the tertiary hospital where he was being treated we encountered problems. The hospital couldn’t access the scans from the private hospital because they were two different systems which meant there was an interoperability issue as the two systems ‘didn’t talk to each other’. One of the suggestions I was given was that I could drive to the private diagnostic centre, which was about a 40 mile drive from my house, with a CD, and then they would download the scans onto the CD and I could then drive back to the hospital, which was about another 35 mile drive. There were multiple calls and this was really quite distressing for our family because we knew my father needed access to the scans urgently. In the end they said they’d do another scan in the hospital. Although I don't think there were any kind of safety issues with my father having another scan, it did mean that not only did it cause delays and stress for my father and the family, it was also a cost to the NHS, which could have been avoided. Communication problems between departments Then around the same time, the hospital wanted to do another scan on my father to prepare for the surgery. Again, as it was urgent, I kept ringing the hospital asking if he had his scan yet but because my father was under the vascular and cardiac departments it was often difficult to know who to speak to because one department needed information from the other and they hadn't received it. So I’d get through to one department who then told me to phone another department, or I would be put on hold by someone from admin who didn’t know the answer and would say they’d ring back but didn’t because they were very busy. As a carer/relative you don’t know what’s happening and you become worried that your loved one is lost in the system. I persisted in phoning but, coincidentally, at the same time my sister visited my father’s house to pick up some bits for him. She saw there was a letter from the hospital so she opened it and it was a letter inviting my father in to have an outpatient appointment scan in the hospital he was an inpatient in! I ended up going to PALS. The lady I spoke to was understanding, sympathetic, kind and highly efficient. But she told me this happened all the time as the radiology department doesn't have access to the hospital's IT system, so they wouldn't know my father was an inpatient and would have just invited him in in a timely way but they would have done that as if he was an outpatient. I coordinated between the different departments and we finally got the scan for my father, he had the surgery and survived. However, these delays could have compromised his health because the surgery was urgent and if he had deteriorated whilst waiting that may have killed him. As a family we were very conscious that time was of the essence and we had to push continuously. Lack of information given to families These are just two examples from a multiple of occasions where we as a family were trying to get information. My father was elderly and wouldn’t have questioned the doctor. And because of his cognition issues due to his dementia, and also because he was on high doses of pain medication, he becomes confused and we couldn’t always rely on what he told us. However, often the healthcare professionals wouldn’t tell us things, despite me being next of kin and with documented power of attorney, and told us to speak to my father. So as a carer or relative you are trying to join the dots and work within a health system that isn’t coordinated. What I want to see change On the face of it they may seem like quite small examples, but when they build up, they are significant in terms of risk. My father was a high-risk patient and if it wasn’t for our diligence and persistence he would have fallen through the cracks, to a significant detriment to his health. I didn’t want there to be avoidable harm, an investigation and ‘lessons learned.’ I want us to be working in a coordinated and proactive manner to recognise the risks and void any harm. And for that insight to be used to ensure systems and processes are improved for the benefit of other patients and families. Also, I want opportunities to share my experience, not as a formal complaint but for genuine interest in our family’s customer experience. Again, for learning and future preventative action not for blame. *The names in this blog have been changed to ensure anonymity. Are you a patient, relative or carer frustrated with navigating the healthcare system? Or is your GP practice or Trust doing something innovative to make it easier for patients? We would love to hear your stories. Please add to our community forum (you will need to register with the hub, it's free and easy to sign up) or email us at [email protected]. Related reading The challenges of navigating the healthcare system: David's story The challenges of navigating the healthcare system: Sue's story Navigating the healthcare system as a university student: My personal experience Lost in the system? NHS referrals "I love the NHS, BUT..." Preventing needless harms caused by poor communication in the NHS (DEMOS, November 2023) Robust collaborative practice must become the bedrock of modern healthcare Robbie: A homeless patient’s struggles with the system Digital-only prescription requests: An elderly woman sent round the houses Lost in the system: the need for better admin Digital-only prescription requests: An elderly woman sent round the houses
  12. Content Article
    Navigating the healthcare system in the UK can be complex and frustrating for patients, families and carers. We hear time and time again on the hub about the lack of joined up care and communication within and across organisations.  Failing to share the right information at the right time can create significant patient safety risks. Poor communications, both with patients and between healthcare professionals, can result in misunderstandings and mistakes resulting in poor outcomes and potentially patient harm. In a new series of blogs on the hub, patients and their relatives describe the challenges and barriers they have faced when trying to navigate the healthcare system.  Although every experience of navigating the healthcare system is different, the blogs in this series highlight some clear themes: Confusing communications and correspondence. Information not accessible across departments. Disjointed electronic systems, often not talking to each other. Concerns around the impact of delays to treatment and diagnostic tests. Near misses managed by patients and family members. Concerns for more vulnerable patients and those without advocates. The negative impact on mental health and stress levels. Not knowing who to contact to chase referrals, appointments or results. Read Sue’s story Sue’s husband Neil has a very rare chronic condition and is under the care of many different specialties. In this blog, Sue shares her and Neil’s experiences of trying to coordinate the healthcare system and highlights the challenges and frustrations they continuously face. Read David’s story In this blog, David shares his story about his elderly sister who has dementia, and a mix up with an urgent referral which led to a near miss. Read Margaret’s story Margaret’s father has dementia and a complex set of health issues. In this blog, Margaret shares her experience of trying to coordinate their elderly father's upcoming surgery. Read a university student’s story Moving to university is a big transition for many. In this anonymous blog, a student describes how persistent health issues led to a frustrating journey through the healthcare system. These stories illustrate how disjointed systems can affect patient and carer experiences and have a negative impact on health outcomes. Commenting on the issues highlighted in the series, Chief Executive of Patient Safety Learning, Helen Hughes says: “Poorly coordinated care is not only confusing and frustrating for patients but also creates safety risks that can result in serious avoidable harm. We hear many examples, such those covered in this blog series, of patients and their families facing a complex and fragmented healthcare environment. When they raise concerns about care and treatment, in too many cases they encounter an unresponsive system where they are left to ‘join the dots for patient safety’. The needs of patients should be central to improving health and care services, actively listening and acting on their experiences and insights when things go wrong for safety improvement.” Share your story What has been your experience of navigating the healthcare system? What is and isn’t working? How does it feel as a patient or carer when you hit barriers? Has your health been affected? Share your story in our community forum or contact our editorial team at [email protected]. Related reading Lost in the system? NHS referrals "I love the NHS, BUT..." Preventing needless harms caused by poor communication in the NHS (DEMOS, November 2023) Robust collaborative practice must become the bedrock of modern healthcare Robbie: A homeless patient’s struggles with the system Digital-only prescription requests: An elderly woman sent round the houses Lost in the system: the need for better admin Digital-only prescription requests: An elderly woman sent round the houses
  13. Community Post
    In a new series of blogs on the hub, patients and their relatives describe the challenges and barriers they have faced when trying to navigate the healthcare system. What has been your experience of navigating the healthcare system? What is and isn’t working? How does it feel as a patient or carer when you hit barriers? Has your health been affected? Or perhaps you're a healthcare professional who has insights to share? Is your work affected by disjointed systems? Have you been involved in implementing systems to help care coordination? Please comment below (sign up first for free) or you can email us at [email protected].
  14. Content Article
    On the 13 February 2025, the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) published a report exploring how patient safety is managed across different organisational boundaries. This forms part of a series of reports looking at Safety Management System principles and their application to health and care. In this blog, Patient Safety Learning sets out its reflections on the findings of this investigation. HSSIB investigates patient safety concerns across the NHS in England, and in independent healthcare settings where safety learning could also help to improve NHS care. Their latest report looks at patient safety issues across organisational boundaries, by exploring the safety management activities of Integrated Care Boards (ICBs).[1] An ICB is a statutory NHS organisation responsible for bringing NHS and other partners together to plan and deliver services in an Integrated Care System (ICS). ICSs are partnerships that bring together organisations in specific geographical areas—there are currently 42 across England.[2] This HSSIB investigation focuses on the experiences of Ros and her husband and carer Norman, using their case to demonstrate the gaps in patient safety management when patients’ care is managed across multiple providers in an ICS. Reflecting on the findings of this report, in this blog we focus on four key subject areas: safety management systems reporting and learning from patient safety incidents ICBs and ICSs patients still having to join the dots of patient safety. Safety management systems The HSSIB report forms part of a series looking at the application of a safety management systems (SMSs) approach to health and care. HSSIB define this as: “A safety management system (SMS) is a proactive approach to managing safety that is used in other industries. It sets out the necessary organisational structures and accountabilities to manage safety risks. It requires safety management to be integrated into an organisation’s day-to-day activities.” There is a growing debate about the potential benefits of moving towards a SMS approach in healthcare, which is widely used to manage safety in different industries. HSSIB states that such an approach has four key components: Safety policy—establishes senior management's commitment to improve safety and outlines responsibilities; defining the way the organisation needs to be structured to meet safety goals. Safety risk management—which includes the identification of hazards (things that could cause harm) and risks (the likelihood of a hazard causing harm) and the assessment and mitigation of risks. Safety assurance—which involves the monitoring and measuring of safety performance (e.g., how effectively an organisation is managing risks), the continuous improvement of the SMS and evaluating the continued effectiveness of implemented risk controls. Safety promotion—which includes training, communication and other actions to support a positive safety culture within all levels of the workforce.[3] However, as the findings of their report highlight, we are currently a long way removed from such an approach in our health and care system. Emphasising this, it states: “There are no overarching principles that all healthcare providers and ICBs can use which enable a consistent and collaborative approach to the management of patient safety.” The report notes a particular gap around the role of ICBs, referencing the NHS Oversight Framework, which describes how oversight of NHS trusts, foundation trusts and ICBs operates. It highlights that this does not specify the day-to-day patient safety management activities to be undertaken by ICBs. The report’s key recommendation in this area is as follows: “HSSIB recommends that the Department of Health and Social Care, working with NHS England, uses the findings of this report to inform the development of the 10 Year Health Plan and NHS Quality Strategy. The intent of this recommendation is to encourage further exploration of how the safety management principles described in this report might be applied in health and care settings to improve patient safety.” Patient Safety Learning supports this recommendation. We think that a country-wide SMS would have the potential to provide a more structured and joined up approach to patient safety strategies, involving all the national bodies. We believe that integral to this is a standards-based framework to ensure safety, quality patient care, consistently delivered.[4] A patient safety standards framework helps organisations understand ‘what good looks like’ for patient safety and where more action is needed for improvement with clearly defined safety aims and goals. Such a framework will enable organisations and regulators to demonstrate a risk-based approach to patient safety and evidence achievement. It can provide assurance that patient safety sits at the organisation’s core, improves performance through increased effectiveness, and enables patients and families, staff, funders and communities to identify and differentiate good safety providers. This is a point we recently highlighted in our submission to the independent review of patient safety across the health and care landscape being led by Dr Penny Dash.[5] Reporting and learning from patient safety incidents In the last couple of years, the NHS has been transitioning to a new system for recording and analysing patient safety incidents. The former National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) has been gradually phased out, with organisations moving onto the new Learn from Patient Safety Events (LfPSE) service.[6] This HSSIB investigation highlights a number of concerning issues relating to how effectively the LfPSE service supports the identification and management of patient safety risks across organisational boundaries. The report notes difficulties accessing and using data from the system with less analysis tools available compared to the previous NRLS. Worryingly, it states: “ICBs suggested that they needed to be building a picture of ICS risks, including those which involved cross-organisational boundaries, but they could not currently do this because of the usability of the LFPSE service and data.” The report does note that in response to these concerns some ICBs have developed local adaptations to compensate for this lack of visibility of patient safety risks within providers. It also says that NHS England has indicated it is developing a new Recorded Data Dashboard for LfPSE that will allow for greater analysis of incident records than was possible with NRLS. Considering these concerns, HSSIB makes the following safety observation: “Health and care organisations can improve patient safety by working together to identify the challenges with the practical use of the Learn from Patient Safety Events service to enable the identification of risks that span multiple providers. This is intended to identify the requirements and support needed to improve risk management.” On these issues, we feel more robust action is required. Sharing learning from patient safety incidents is a fundamental component of improving patient safety and delivering safe care. That LfPSE is not currently providing the means to analyse and share cross-organisational learning represents a significant missed opportunity. As the findings of the report demonstrate, local fixes, which may not be applied consistently across the NHS, are now required because of ICBs lack of visibility of patient safety risks within providers. At Patient Safety Learning we also have related concerns about the availability of LfPSE data beyond ICBs. Currently, individual trusts can see reports of their own data but not system-wide information to help them assess risk or engage with others. This can create a siloed approach where individual trusts or departments may benefit from their data but fail to contribute to a wider culture of safety improvement. We are also troubled that the outputs of local learning responses and safety incident investigations under the new Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) are not widely shared either within or across ICBs. We understand that the new initiatives, PSIRF and LfPSE, are intended to align so that there is a comprehensive and system-wide analysis with reports on the causes and contributory factors of avoidable harm and action needed to make improvement. However, this alignment is not currently reflected in practice. This is not an acceptable situation. The existing gaps in the LfPSE service are not simply a technical issue with a new digital service. They will result in missed opportunities to identify patient safety risks, learn from them and ultimately prevent avoidable harm to patients. We believe the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England must now prioritise the development and improvement of LfPSE and its integration with PSIRF. Integrated Care Boards and Integrated Care Systems A theme that runs throughout the HSSIB report is the lack of clarity around the roles of ICBs and ICSs in patient safety. Its key findings highlight this, noting: “There is a difference in the perception of how patient safety is managed between ICBs and national health and care stakeholders, including the lines of safety accountability.” This lack of clarity can also be seen in a number of other examples in the report: Inconsistency in how ICBs have reported processes and responses when escalating safety risks to NHS England. If these do not fall within existing programmes of work, responses were described as “hit and miss”. Uncertainty about whether ICBs have oversight of provider collaboratives in relation to patient safety. This was described by an NHS England respondent as a “big black hole”. Varying approaches to safety management activities by ICBs. The report notes that while some undertake assurance visits, “these are limited by capacity and ICBs described a reliance on more reactive activities such as responding to incidents which had already occurred”. In a further example of this lack of clarity, at one point the report notes: “… a senior manager at NHS England told the investigation that while there is an expectation that ICBs will manage cross-organisational safety risks, NHS England “have not told ICBs they have to” do this or “flagged this” in planning or operational guidance. The investigation acknowledges that PSIRF guidance refers to management of cross-organisational safety risks. However, this does not direct how cross-organisational safety risks should be managed more generally outside of PSIRF.” Patient Safety Learning believes action is required to create clarity about the role of ICBs and ICSs in patient safety. We set this out previously in in our report, The elephant in the room: Patient safety and Integrated Care Systems.[7] One means of addressing this gap could be through implementing a SMS approach in health and care, with ICBs and ICSs tasked with a clear leadership role for system safety. This is another point we recently highlighted in our submission to the independent review of patient safety across the health and care landscape.[5] We believe that there is potential at an ICS level to develop an integrated and coordinated approach to safety, reflecting patient care pathways across systems and ensuring consistency and collaboration. Patients still having to join the dots of patient safety At Patient Safety Learning, we believe that patients should be engaged for safety at the point of care, if things go wrong, in improving services, advocating for changes and in holding the system to account. We identify this as one of our six foundations of safer care in our report, A Blueprint for Action.[8] The importance of patient feedback is reflected in the HSSIB report, which notes that: “Patients and carers are an important source of feedback to ICBs about patient safety risks across organisational boundaries. However, this can create inequities as some people are more able than others to make their voice heard.” There is no doubt that insights and feedback from patients and carers can provide ICBs with valuable information on patient safety risks, within organisations and across organisational boundaries. However, this must be accompanied by a structured and resourced framework for gathering these insights otherwise the visibility of these insights are likely to favour those patients and carers who are more adept and confident at making their voices heard. As noted by Norman in his own reflections on his carer role for Ros: "Norman told the investigation that he was getting the care Ros needed through his actions and that he was aware of other patients whose families did not have as strong an advocate as him. He said this affected their ability to get the care they needed, and that 'there are a lot of us out here trying to look after patients'.” While points around safety management systems, LfPSE and ICB/ICS roles and responsibilities can appear detached from day-to-day care, ultimately their impact comes back to the patient. As noted by the First Do No Harm report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, patients impacted by avoidable harm and unsafe care often have to ‘join the dots of patient safety’ in response to systemic failures.[9] If we fail to address these systemic failures, they will result in patient safety risks that come with a very real human cost. References HSSIB. Safety management systems: accountability across organisational boundaries, 13 February 2025. NHS England. What are integrated care systems? Last accessed 10 February 2025. HSSIB. Safety management systems: an introduction for healthcare, 18 October 2023. Patient Safety Learning, Standards: What Good Looks Like, Last accessed 10 February 2025. Department of Health and Social Care, Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape: terms of reference, 15 October 2024. NHS England. Learn from patient safety events (LFPSE) service, Last accessed 10 February 2025. Patent Safety Learning. The elephant in the room: Patient safety and integrated care systems, 11 July 2023. Patient Safety Learning, The Patient-Safe Future: A Blueprint For Action, 2019. The IMMDS Review, First Do No Harm: The report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, 8 July 2020.
  15. Content Article
    This is one of a series of Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) investigations exploring safety management and whether the principles adopted in other industries may assist in the management of safety in health and care. The aim of the investigations is to help improve patient safety in relation to the management of patient safety risks across organisational boundaries. This has been explored through an understanding of the pathways of care for patients whose care involves engaging with providers in primary, secondary and community care and with integrated care systems (ICSs). This report makes reference to processes which exist within the health and care system relating to the management of safety. You can read Patient Safety Learning’s response to this report here. This investigation explored the experiences of Ros, and her husband and carer Norman, to demonstrate the gaps in patient safety management when patients’ care is managed across multiple providers in an ICS. The investigation engaged with patient safety and quality teams within Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) to understand how patient safety risks were managed at this level of the health and care system. The investigation also engaged with NHS England regional and national teams to understand the risks that were escalated to them and how they were managed. Findings There are no overarching principles that all healthcare providers and ICBs can use which enable a consistent and collaborative approach to the management of patient safety. There is a difference in the perception of how patient safety is managed between ICBs and national health and care stakeholders, including the lines of safety accountability. National organisations’ expectations of how ICBs manage patient safety are not in line with what ICBs can currently achieve due to challenges with resourcing and the usability of safety data. Patient safety risks may be escalated from the regional to the national level but there is variability in how these risks are managed at a national level and how responses to escalations are fed back. Cross-organisational safety risks are not always being escalated to ICBs and there may be limited resources and capability to identify, define and investigate such risks. Learn from Patient Safety Events (LFPSE) is the national learning service for the NHS; however, challenges in the usability of LFPSE data means that system level risks may not be visible to ICBs and the wider health and care system. Existing informal ‘good relationships’ between individual providers and an ICB facilitate the effective sharing and management of risks. Where these ‘good relationships’ do not exist or change, formal governance processes do not always ensure information sharing continues. Patients and carers are an important source of feedback to ICBs about patient safety risks across organisational boundaries. However, this can create inequities as some people are more able than others to make their voice heard. Recommendations, observations and suggestions HSSIB makes the following safety recommendation: Safety recommendation R/2025/057: HSSIB recommends that the Department of Health and Social Care, working with NHS England, uses the findings of this report to inform the development of the 10 Year Health Plan and NHS Quality Strategy. The intent of this recommendation is to encourage further exploration of how the safety management principles described in this report might be applied in health and care settings to improve patient safety. HSSIB makes the following safety observations: Safety observation O/2025/061: Health and care organisations can improve patient safety by working together to identify the challenges with the practical use of the Learn from Patient Safety Events service to enable the identification of risks that span multiple providers. This is intended to identify the requirements and support needed to improve risk management. Safety observation O/2025/062: Health and care organisations can improve patient safety by having clear lines of safety accountability and assurance of risk management processes. Currently patient safety risks are not managed in line with established UK government risk management principles. HSSIB makes the following safety suggestions: Safety learning for Integrated Care Boards ICB/2025/011: HSSIB suggests that integrated care boards seek assurance of how health and care providers will work together when commissioning services, so that patient safety can be managed across health and care providers. This is to help support the visibility and management of patient safety risks across an integrated care system. Safety learning for Integrated Care Boards ICB/2025/012: HSSIB suggests that integrated care boards develop their patient safety capability and expertise to ensure they can effectively analyse safety data and intelligence about patient safety risks. This would help to identify and understand patient safety risks that exist across multiple providers in order to proactively investigate and manage these risks.
  16. News Article
    A private call handling firm operating the NHS 111 non-emergency service has admitted it was at fault for failing to send an ambulance to a baby boy who died shortly after falling ill, an inquest has heard. Ben Condon, who was born premature, died aged two months at Bristol children’s hospital in April 2015 after developing a respiratory illness. A first inquest into his death ruled that Ben died as a result of acute respiratory distress syndrome, human metapneumovirus and prematurity but the conclusion was quashed by high court judges. On Monday, a fresh inquest opened into Ben’s death and heard that when the child went home to Weston-super-Mare, North Somerset, with his parents he developed a cold. His father, Allyn Condon, rang the non-emergency 111 service – run at the time by Care UK – at about 6pm on 10 April. The call handler referred Ben for an out-of-hours telephone call-back appointment with a GP within two hours rather than send an ambulance, a decision the coroner said was affected by “bias” as the handler was aware of “external pressures” facing ambulances. The court heard that by 7.45pm when Condon and his wife, Jenny, had not received the call from the GP, they took their son to the Weston general hospital. Reading from a written statement, the assistant coroner Robert Sowersby said Care UK had apologised to the Condon family and the adviser was taken off calls for nearly three weeks and received further training. “Care UK admitted it was at fault for having not sent an ambulance after the call,” Sowersby said. “It said that changes in the recordings of telephone calls needed to be made and apologised for their failings. “Care UK identified in the root cause analysis that the health adviser failed to actively listen and failed to accept the responses provided and there was a failure to select the appropriate pathway responses.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 3 February 2025
  17. Content Article
    Every winter, the NHS faces immense pressure, with poor standards of care becoming an expected part of the "winter crisis." The Patients Association, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the College of Paramedics, the National Association of Primary Care, and the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives have joined together to propose practical solutions for meaningful, long-term improvement. The joint statement identifies four core issues at the heart of the crisis: Primary care does not have the capacity to meet its patient demand. We are not pro-actively looking after patients who are currently the most frequent users of urgent and emergency care to stop them getting so unwell. The urgent and emergency ‘system’ in the NHS remains fragmented and disjointed, making it hard to navigate patients to the right place to get their care. Emergency departments (EDs) have become hugely congested because of lack of flow into and out of hospital beds. Proposals to address these issues 1) Increasing primary care capacity by: In 2025/26 ensuring the uplift in funding promised by the government does translate into the ability of practices to employ more GPs. In subsequent years increase the share of NHS funding for general practice to match the increased workload involved in the planned shift of care from hospitals to the community. Freeing up GP time, so they have more time to spend with the patients who most need continuity by cutting bureaucratic red tape, supporting practices to improve triage systems to help navigate patients to the right part of primary care and the wider NHS. This could also contribute to freeing up capacity in 111. Introducing a national alert system to flag unsafe levels of workload and allow GP practices to access additional support. Every Integrated Care System (ICS) should be required to establish alert systems for general practice, similar to the ‘operational pressures escalation levels framework’ in hospitals. Beginning the implementation of integrated neighbourhood working by aligning community services to each primary care network so we can better use existing resources across the primary and community care sector to focus on prevention and keeping people well in their communities. Making the best use of the paramedic workforce to support primary care with home visiting and face to face services. 2) Improving care for the patient groups who are currently using urgent and emergency care the most by: Resource is needed to enable every older person in a high risk group to have a full health ‘MOT’ every year, including consideration of loneliness and isolation risks, a known driver of ill-health. These should be conducted by integrated neighbourhood health teams with multi-disciplinary team input particularly from primary, community and mental health colleagues. The resulting care plans should be readily accessible to all healthcare professionals with whom they come into contact. All people in residential and nursing homes should have the NHS delivered to them. This should be led by GP and community teams with the expectation that care is provided to them in their place of residence and the first point of contact for most urgent care episodes is those teams and not 999. All patients known to be on a palliative care pathway should have a care plan, accessible to clinicians across the emergency care pathway that is explicit about where the patient would like to die so that we can honour their last wishes. Identifying the highest users of urgent and emergency care in each ICS footprint, in order to agree a care plan for these individuals and to reduce their use of ED. Providing more support to patients in deprived communities by reviewing all funding streams (including primary care) to channel more spending to areas of greatest need. Identifying patients who are at high risk of emergency admissions (supported by AI) with a particular focus on adults with chronic breathing and cardiac conditions to create bespoke care plans (including using wearable devices) with pro-active monitoring to minimise the spikes in demand we see every winter. Consider making the flu vaccination available, subject to JCVI approval, to a much broader group than currently defined, and then making sure we maximise both the uptake and speed of vaccination. 3) Joining the urgent and emergency system back together by: Creating a single 24/7 service for each ED catchment area that is focused on caring for people in their normal place of residence that brings together the current urgent community response teams, virtual ward teams and ED teams into a single multi-disciplinary team. Supporting the development of the principle of senior clinical decision making in community as well as the ED environment. Making it an expectation that community-based clinicians and hospital staff routinely discuss their patients to ensure they get the right care, blurring the boundaries between hospital and community / primary care. Integrating urgent mental health services into ambulance, ED and 111 delivery and training many more clinicians with mental health skills for managing patients in mental health crisis. Allowing the ambulance service the time to do a fuller clinical assessment for all patients who call 999 who do not obviously need conveying to an ED. Having a patient’s medical record that is accessible by all providers who can read and update it and that patients can see themselves. Re-wiring the NHS financial flows to incentivise the system to work together and to reward providers who deliver the interventions in this paper. Creating a workforce strategy for the urgent and emergency care system looking at capacity needed for in and out of hours GP services, community nursing, mental health and paramedics, aligning training and careers together. Create an improvement culture in urgent and emergency care by routinely evaluating, learning and adapting initiatives. 4) Improving the flow through emergency departments: We have to improve flow in hospitals by beginning to resolve the bottlenecks that delayed discharges create, primarily because of insufficient bed capacity and lack of social care funding. Rather than rehearse the arguments that have been made in recent weeks, we endorse all the feedback being voiced by many, that the solutions for social care cannot wait until 2028 and we must begin to increase social care capacity before next winter. Implementing many of the recommendations from the Cavendish review from 2022 would be a good place to start. We also need to maximise opportunities to prevent deconditioning of our frail or elderly patients when they are inpatients through improved therapy and dietetic support.
  18. News Article
    The drive to cut NHS waiting lists is being hampered by bed-blockers who now cost taxpayers more than £2billion a year, a study reveals. More than 12,000 hospital beds every day are occupied by patients who no longer have a medical need to remain but are unable to leave. The huge scale of the crisis - equivalent to closing 26 entire hospitals - is forcing managers to cancel operations and fuelling ambulance delays as there are so few beds for new admissions. A total of 15.7million bed days have been lost to bed-blocking over the past three-and-a-half years, according to new analysis of NHS figures. This averages 12,008 beds per day over the study period but the problem has significantly worsened during this time - soaring 59% from an average of 8,039 per day in April 2021 to 12,772 in April 2024. Many of those stuck on wards are waiting for a place in a care home or for a package of care to be arranged in their own home. Charities warn the longer elderly people remain in hospital the more they deteriorate and the greater they risk they will never regain independence. Read full story Source: The Daily Mail, 31 December 2024
  19. Content Article
    This is the first in a series of Healthcare Services Safety Investigation Body (HSSIB) investigations exploring why medications intended to be provided to patients are not given. Patients who need medications can suffer harm if these are not provided. The investigation explored the systems and processes in place to support staff to recognise, prescribe and administer time critical medications in the emergency department (ED). Time critical medications are medications that must be given at specific times of the day to ensure they are fully effective. The investigation also explored the role played by electronic prescribing and medicines administration (ePMA) systems in supporting care in this area. To explore these issues, the investigation used a patient safety event involving a patient aged 85 with Parkinson’s. The patient usually took his own medication (self-administered) at home – two doses of Parkinson’s medication four times a day, at set times – to help control his symptoms. The patient safety event The patient had attended hospital for an outpatient appointment where he mentioned he had back pain following a fall at home the previous day. He was advised to attend the ED and went there immediately after his outpatient appointment. The patient spent 3 days in the ED. During this time he should have received a total of 18 doses of his Parkinson’s medication, which was a time critical medication. However, seven doses were not given and three doses were given late. This meant that only 8 of 18 doses of Parkinson’s medication were provided to the patient on time. The patient was transferred to a medical ward where his Parkinson’s symptoms deteriorated and he lost the ability to swallow. The patient died 4 weeks after his admission to the ward. The causes of death identified on his death certificate included bronchopneumonia (severe chest infection), Parkinson’s, and frailty of old age. Findings The patient required time critical medication for Parkinson’s but did not receive, or received late, 10 of 18 doses during his time in the ED. The coroner reported Parkinson’s as a factor leading to the patient’s death. There were no defined roles or responsibilities in the ED to ensure patients who required time critical medications were identified, and medications prescribed, as soon as possible. The ED had no dedicated pharmacy support to help staff in providing care to patients who required time critical medications. The patient spent 52 hours in the ED; for 44 of these he was cared for in a corridor because of demand on ED services. Corridor care created additional challenges for ED staff and specialty teams and may have limited opportunities to store the patient’s medication which he had brought from home. The Trust did not participate in the Royal College of Emergency Medicine Quality Improvement Programme on time critical medication. The ePMA system did not include a function to alert staff about patients who required time critical medications to be prescribed or administered. An outage in the ePMA system meant the patient required both an electronic and paper prescription chart. This may have caused additional confusion about the patient’s medication. Staff had adapted their practice to ensure they could effectively use the ePMA in the ED setting. This was because of challenges in accessing computers and medication rooms in the ED environment. The patient self-administered some doses of his Parkinson’s medication, but this was not planned and self-administration by patients was not widely supported by clinical staff or local guidance. Staff were not able to check neurology clinic letters because there was a backlog in these letters being uploaded to the electronic patient record system. Staff were not able to check information with the patient’s GP practice or Parkinson’s specialty team at the time the patient’s medication was prescribed in the ED, as this was outside of these services’ working hours. Staff received contradictory information from the patient’s son and the GP summary care record about the dosage of medication the patient required. The GP summary care record was taken as the most accurate record, but the information it contained was incorrect. Once the patient’s medication information was entered onto the ePMA system, no further attempt was made to contact the GP practice or Parkinson’s specialty team to confirm it was correct. Some information about the patient’s medication within the GP patient record was transferred to the GP summary care record, but other information was not. Safety observation NHS trusts can improve patient safety by using the information contained in the information pack for the Royal College of Emergency Medicine’s Quality Improvement Programme on time critical medications to assess their preparedness and make local improvements in identifying, prescribing, and administering time critical medications in emergency departments. Local-level learning prompts for acute hospitals Delays in identifying and prescribing time critical medication in the ED How does your organisation ensure that patients who need time critical medications are identified as soon as possible on arrival to the ED? Who in your patient pathway is responsible for identifying patients who need time critical medications? Who in your patient pathway is responsible for prescribing time critical medications? How does your organisation ensure that once a patient’s need for time critical medications is identified, they are prescribed? What aids or tools are available in your organisation to help staff to identify patients who need time critical medications? What pharmacy support is available to staff in ED to support in the care of patients who need time critical medications? Missed and delayed doses of time critical medication in the ED How does your organisation support staff to access information (including information from primary care and specialty teams) about patients’ time critical medications? How does your organisation support patients to self-administer time critical medications, when appropriate? How does your organisation capture information when patients self-administer time critical medications? How does your organisation receive and consider information from families and carers to help avoid missed or delayed doses of time critical medications? ePMA systems and time critical medication in the ED How does your ePMA system help to alert staff to patients who need time critical medications? How does your organisation train staff to use local ePMA systems and record when patients require time critical medications? How does your organisation prepare and support staff to work safely when ePMA systems may not be functioning to ensure time critical medications are not missed? How does your organisation audit delays or omissions in time critical medications and use this to improve delivery of time critical medication? Is your organisation aware of any adaptations that staff are required to make to ensure they can use the ePMA system effectively in local environments? Further reading on the hub: Professionals with Parkinson’s tackle time critical patient safety issue: a blog by Sam Freeman Carney Parkinson's UK: Time critical medication guides for health professionals Medication delays: A huge risk for inpatients with Parkinson’s
  20. Content Article
    NHS England and the government have launched a new ‘red tape challenge’. Their ambition is to make form-filling by GPs more efficient so they can free up time to see patients. But it’s not just GPs who want efficient admin – patients do too. We know that people can struggle to book an appointment or get their test results, and that managing the admin associated with your health can feel like a full-time job. The way the NHS communicates with patients matters. Poor admin can restrict people’s access to care, negatively affect their wellbeing, and undermine trust in the NHS. It can also have a negative impact on staff. Patients who have to move between primary and secondary care (and back again), or have multiple long-term conditions can experience the highest burden when admin is not co-ordinated or designed around their needs. Admin staff also bear the weight of failing admin systems. They are the first point of contact for people trying to navigate a complex and often confusing health and care system. Admin staff are left supporting patients when they can’t get through on the phone or when test results are lost. They often bear the brunt of patient frustration, anxiety, fear – and abuse. Admin staff are in a unique position to make a real difference to how people experience the NHS.
  21. Content Article
    This is one of a series of Health Services and Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) and on the theme of patient safety in mental health inpatient settings. This investigation explored the issue of out of area placements (OAPs) – that is, scenarios where a patient is placed in a mental health inpatient setting that is a long way from their home or usual place of residence. This report examines the reasons for OAPs, the harms caused by them and how patients can be kept safe if an OAP is necessary. In particular it focuses on inappropriate OAPs. These are where a patient is unable to be cared for in their local NHS mental health acute inpatient setting and has to be sent to another, normally independent, mental health provider for ongoing treatment and care. These OAPs can be significant distances from a person’s residence. The investigation recognises that other OAPs exist for specialised commissioned services such as those for patients with eating disorders, but these were not considered in this investigation. The investigation has been informed by work carried out in the other investigations in the series, in particular ‘Creating conditions for learning from deaths and near misses in inpatient and community mental health services’. Findings Relating to patient, family and carer experiences The investigation found that harm (including dying by suicide, physical, psychological, distress and anxiety) was happening to patients, families and carers because of OAPs and the impact of being far away from their normal support network. There was also significant anger, frustration and loss of trust in the mental health system as a result of their experiences. Patients, families and carers rarely want an OAP and their choice and opinions are not always taken into consideration when decisions about sending someone to an OAP are made. The investigation found that OAPs can increase patients’ length of stay in hospital and therefore contribute to harm to patients. Patient, family and carers’ wishes and preferences, as required in the Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice, are not documented by health and care staff or routinely monitored during Care Quality Commission inspections. This leaves patient, families and carers feeling they are not listened to and increases anxiety, frustration and anger, leading to harm for people and creating distrust in the system. Advocacy services are vital for a patient to be able to put forward their views for consideration in decision making about their care, but advocacy is not always offered to patients. Relating to conditions in the health and care There is a national drive to reduce OAPs, but there continues to be an increasing trend in their use. OAPs may be the only option for patients if they are acutely unwell and need admission to inpatient services and there are no beds available in their local NHS mental health hospital. If OAPs are not utilised in this situation, people will remain unwell in the community and potentially present a high risk of harm to themselves or others. The rules, governance and legal framework within which health and social care organisations work differ. This can create friction in the system, preventing integration and pooling of funds across organisations, slowing down discharge and patient flow, and is a significant factor in the use of OAPs. It is impossible to look at the mental health inpatient system in isolation; consideration must be given to other health and care services such as community mental health services, social care and social housing provision by local authorities. When patients are sent to OAPs, the sending hospitals do not maintain responsibility for the welfare or clinical oversight of those patients. Limited patient flow through mental health and other services reduces trusts’ ability to discharge patients from hospital, which can increase the use of OAPs. NHS mental health trusts do not always have local authority social workers embedded in their organisations, as used to be the case under previous working arrangements. Embedding social workers within trusts was viewed by social workers and healthcare staff as a benefit to patients and improved patient flow and discharge planning. Some NHS trusts are undertaking some of the functions of local authorities relating to social housing, in order to enable patients to be discharged and reduce the need for OAPs. Beds and patients are managed in an impersonal way without seeing patients as having individual requirements. They are both treated as “commodities” when deciding on the need for an OAP because of the pressure on services and need for acute mental health beds. Crisis resolution and home treatment teams can have a significant influence in the early discharge of patients, that then creates a bed for the most mentally unwell patients in the community. Hospitals that send patients out of area sometimes rely on Care Quality Commission rating to base OAP decisions on, but many of these ratings are out of date and may not reflect the current situation. Many acute mental health patients have neurodevelopmental conditions and would benefit from early testing when they are in contact with community and acute mental health settings. Early assessment makes sure people are placed on the right pathway and may reduce admissions to acute mental health settings and the need for OAP. HSSIB makes the following safety recommendations HSSIB recommends that the Department of Health and Social Care includes the documenting of patient, family and carers’ wishes and preferences within the Mental Health Bill. This will ensure all patient, family and carer voices are considered in decisions relating to where the patient identifies they would like to be close to, for example the patient’s home or a family member, specifically when an out of area placement is needed. HSSIB recommends that the Department of Health and Social Care works across government to review the statutory instruments, business processes and regulations that govern mental health services, social care and housing services impacting on mental health out of area placements and creates a proposal for the future accountability and integration of health and social care. This is to ensure that they are operating to consistent statutory, financial and regulatory frameworks. By addressing system integration and nd local authorities will define accountability and reduce or prevent out of area placements. HSSIB makes the following safety observations NHS organisations can improve patient safety by maintaining clinical and welfare oversight and responsibility for patients being treated in an out of area placement. This can ensure harm is minimised and that patients are returned to their sending hospital as soon as possible. Mental health inpatient services can improve patient safety by offering advocacy to all mental health inpatients at the point of admission, and ensuring that the patient’s decision about whether or not to have an advocate is continually reviewed as their treatment continues and needs may change. This can ensure that patients’ needs and views are taken into account by health and social care staff when decisions about their care are being made, particularly when in an out of area placement. Crisis resolution and home treatment teams can improve patient safety by joining quality networks for crisis resolution and home treatment teams and could consider using continuous clinical reviews of mental health acute inpatients. This can ensure that appropriate patients are discharged early and could maximise acute care bed availability for patients in the community who are at high risk because of their mental health problem, and reduce the need for out of area placements. Health and social care organisations can improve patient safety by working together and embedding mental health social workers from the local authority in mental health acute hospitals. This can ensure that patients’ holistic health and social care needs are considered throughout their acute mental health admission and on into the community, and improve efficiency of working, patient flow and discharge and reduce the use of out of area placements. Mental health services can improve patient safety by reviewing their community mental health services to see if they meet the needs of their population with the aim of keeping as many people as possible out of inpatient services and thus preventing the use of out of area placements. Healthcare services can improve patient safety by conducting assessments for neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, where it is safe and clinically indicated, at the earliest opportunity when a person is in contact with community and acute mental health services. This can ensure that patients are put on the appropriate pathway early. This can prevent harm that may be caused by receiving inappropriate treatment and reduce admissions to mental health inpatient settings, thus reducing the need to use out of area placements.
  22. News Article
    A review into emergency care deaths at a struggling trust claims a “lack of consistency” in primary care referrals is a major factor causing A&E crowding. Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, a national outlier for long accident and emergency waits and ambulance handover delays, carried out a review into potential harm to patients from crowding in its emergency departments, which has been obtained by HSJ. The review found that several factors, both internal and external to the hospital, were leading to long A&E waits. Among them was a “lack of consistency in referrals from primary care”. It said: “Too many GPs or their deputies send patients to ED when they could safely be referred to [inpatient] teams and bypass ED altogether.” The review also found the ED was often being used by multiple specialties “as their receiving ‘ward’, bringing more patients to ED who do not need ED care”. This was particularly the case ”when [the specialty’s] own unit closes due to their opening hours, staffing or number of patients in department”. Another factor was a “lack of provision of extended opening hours, staffing and radiology support for key [minor injury units and urgent treatment centres] meaning flow increases to ED in the evening”. The review also said there were “poor comms” when these services close. Read full story (paywalled) Source: HSJ, 21 November 2024
  23. News Article
    Just one year ago, Nicholas Thornton lay in a windowless hospital room, in a bed he could not leave on his own, unable to speak. He had spent 10 years like this, in hospital wards – as well as in unsuitable dementia care homes and psychiatric units – all because he had learning disabilities and autism. Now, 12 months on, he is finally free at the age of 29 – and in a home of his own. His incredible transformation since leaving Rochard Hospital, in Essex, means he is now able to leave his house unassisted and has even regained his speech. “It’s like I have my life back, I have my freedom back... for so long I was just stuck in the hospital. I have my freedom,” he said. But while Nicholas reaps the benefits of his new life, there are more than 2,000 people just like him, stuck in hospitals across the country because there is no suitable care for them outside. Hundreds have been trapped in hospital for more than five years, unable to be discharged into the community as local authorities struggle to come up with funding to meet their needs – and some have become so deeply institutionalised that their needs are now extremely complex. Ministers have introduced a new Mental Health Bill meaning patients with a learning disability and autism would only be sectioned under the Mental Health Act for a maximum of 28 days. But the changes to the act are unlikely to have prevented what happened to Nicholas, who ended up in inappropriate settings primarily because of a breakdown in care packages. Read full story Source: The Independent, 13 November 2024
  24. Content Article
    Effective communication is key to patient safety in healthcare, where clear, consistent exchanges among professionals help prevent medical errors and improve outcomes. Miscommunication—often due to high workloads, time constraints and hierarchical barriers—can lead to treatment delays, errors and even harm to patients. Healthcare facilities that foster open dialogue, use structured protocols (like SBAR) and implement technologies, such as electronic health records, can significantly reduce risks. By promoting a culture that encourages team input, training in active listening and the use of secure messaging, healthcare providers can create safer environments and build trust with patients. Communication is an essential component of delivering high-quality healthcare. In busy environments, where every minute counts, effective interactions between healthcare professionals can significantly affect patient safety, leading to better outcomes and better working environments. Importance of effective communication in healthcare Effective communication is critical in healthcare, where the margin for error is small and the stakes are high. Every interaction between healthcare professionals—whether during handovers, in critical decision-making moments or routine patient care—relies on clear, accurate communication to ensure patient safety. Inconsistent or unclear communication can lead to misunderstandings, such as medical errors, treatment delays and, ultimately, harm to the patient. In fast-paced environments like hospitals, where multiple disciplines and professionals must work in tandem, the ability to communicate effectively ensures that vital information is passed accurately and in a timely manner. This includes everything from verbal exchanges during patient handovers to the use of electronic health records and written communication. Communication in patient safety can be divided into two categories: Preventing adverse events: This involves effective communication among healthcare providers and between providers and patients to prevent errors that could harm the patient. Responding to adverse events: This involves clear and timely communication to address adverse events, including coordination among medical teams, discussions with patients and their families, and implementing changes to prevent similar incidents in the future. Meeting these needs requires all healthcare providers to have solid written, verbal and non-verbal communication abilities. Furthermore, teams must have access to effective electronic communication tools, which can include secure messaging platforms, nurse call systems and specialised two-way radios for hospitals and healthcare facilities. Institutions that implement effective communication benefit in the following ways: Transparent, timely communication reduces errors and misunderstandings that lead to adverse patient outcomes. Solid communication practices result in better and faster decision making. Improved information flow leads to great patient satisfaction and continuation of care where required. Effective communication between healthcare workers reduces stress and increases job satisfaction, leading to higher levels of care. The link between communication and patient safety Poor communication in healthcare settings can compromise patient safety through errors and misunderstandings. In the worst cases, it can even result in harm, leading to a significant loss of trust. Indeed, a recent systematic review protocol suggested that ineffective communication contributed to over 60% of hospital adverse events in the USA.[1] Some of the most frequent communication mistakes led to medication errors, treatment delays, and even wrong-site surgery. Standardised communication devices are also instrumental in coordinating patient transfers and emergency responses, as well as dealing with security threats in a timely fashion. Common communication barriers in healthcare settings Several factors hinder effective communication in healthcare settings. Here are some of the most common barriers. Time constraints Healthcare professionals operate in busy environments, with understaffing a massive issue in many institutions. Operating under these conditions can lead to rushed communications and misunderstandings, which can directly impact patient health. High workloads High levels of stress and burnout are sadly all too common in healthcare. These problems can impact the quality of patient care, leading to communication errors. Environmental factors Lighting, PPE equipment, physical distance, and excess noise are just a few of the environmental factors that hinder communication, potentially contributing to compromised patient safety. Language differences The healthcare system's diverse mix of nationalities and cultures can lead to communication difficulties. These problems can occur between staff and patients, with both scenarios impacting patient safety. Hierarchical bias Hierarchical differences between staff and disciplines can affect patient safety. For example, many junior doctors feel too intimidated to report safety concerns to senior colleagues, while some physicians ignore input from nurses. Communication strategies within healthcare disciplines Solving communication issues in healthcare requires a mix of open dialogue, training, and technology. Additionally, healthcare institutions must also introduce standardised communication protocols. Let’s explore each element below. Open dialogue Fostering open dialogue can help improve patient safety. Establishing a culture that encourages input from all team members is important, as is training on active listening and inclusive leadership. Training Training has a huge role to play in patient safety. Adequate training and education can have a big impact on a wide variety of issues that obstruct effective communication. Teaching time management and prioritization techniques can reduce errors made under pressure. Additionally, as a recent study shows, educating doctors on the benefits of taking a seat while talking to patients enhanced doctor-patient experiences.[2] Furthermore, hospital administrators must provide suitable support for staff and encourage the development of effective workflow management strategies and a bigger focus on wellness and resilience in the face of stress. Technology Technology can solve many of the issues surrounding poor communication in healthcare settings. Electronic Patient Record (EPR) systems can offer a single source of truth, radio-powered communication devices can overcome environmental barriers, and HIPAA-compliant secure messaging platforms can help providers share information in real-time. Communication protocols Establishing clear protocols around communication can measurably improve patient health. Some of the most impactful ideas here include: Using structured communication like SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation). Clearly defining which roles are responsible for specific types of communication. Standardising how information is shared among co-workers and during handovers. Outlining clear escalation protocols to ensure timely interventions. Promoting a culture of safety by encouraging staff to “speak up” about issues. Closing thoughts In summary, effective communication is fundamental to patient safety, requiring robust protocols, open dialogue, and the integration of technology and training. A recent co-report from the Patients Association and the Practice Managers' Association titled “I Love the NHS, but…” highlighted the severe consequences of poor healthcare communication, revealing that more than half of respondents had experienced communication failures within the NHS, with one in ten indicating adverse health outcomes as a result.[3] To create safer healthcare environments, it is crucial for all stakeholders to advocate for improved communication practices. By fostering transparency and collaboration, we can enhance patient care and build a healthcare system that prioritises safety and trust. References Howick J, Solomon J, Nockels K, et al. How does communication affect patient safety? Protocol for a systematic review and logic model. BMJ Open 2024;14:e085312. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2024-085312. Golden BP, Tackett S, Kobayashi K, et al. Wall-mounted folding chairs to promote resident physician sitting at the hospital bedside. J Hospital Med 2024; https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.13271. Burton-Douglas T, De Costa A, Gomez G, et al. “I love the NHS, but... Preventing needless harms caused by poor communication in the NHS. November 2023.
  25. Content Article
    Nigel Hammond died at 10:20 on 14 March 2024 at the Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge. On the 11 March 2024, Nigel fell at his home address. An ambulance was called, and Nigel was initially taken to the Ipswich Hospital but was transferred to the trauma centre at Addenbrooke’s hospital due to the extent of his injuries. Nigel succumbed to the injuries received in the fall, three days later. Nigel had suffered with his mental health for a protracted period, and it is more likely than not that his fall from the window was a deliberate attempt to end his life. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 8th October 2024. The conclusion of the inquest was that the death was the result of:   Suicide, whilst the balance of his mind was disturbed. The medical cause of death was confirmed as: 1a Left Middle Cerebral Artery infarction, Traumatic Brain Injury 2  Depression, Lymphoma. Matters of concern: In late 2018 Nigel became seriously mentally unwell and was admitted to a Mental Health Unit, under the Mental Health Act provisions, for a period of 3 months. Whilst admitted, Nigel was diagnosed with advanced lymphoma (a lymphatic cancer) and upon discharge from the Mental Health Unit spent a further 3 months in hospital being treated for this. Nigel found his Mental Health Unit admission very traumatic and was described as ‘terrified’ of the thought of ever being admitted again. Upon his release, his family, carers, Mental Health Home Treatment team, worked together to provide exemplary care for Nigel, whose health stabilised and in 2020 his care was transferred back to his own General Practitioner. Nigel remained well until Friday 8 March 2024, when due to his decline in mental health he was taken to see his GP, and on the 9 March 2024 Nigel was prevented by family intervention from ending his life by jumping into a river. his incident led to Nigel’s family speaking to the on duty Authorised Mental Health Professional (AMHP) from the Suffolk Emergency Duty Service Team, on the evening of 9th March 2024. An AMHP is a mental health professional approved by a local social services authority to coordinate the mental health assessment and admission to hospital, of individuals requiring admission under the Mental Health Act provisions In evidence, the court heard that the AMHP, in line with Nigel’s family and his own wishes, agreed that an admission to hospital would not be in Nigel’s best interest. The AMHP identified that the successful home treatment regime previously in place would be the ideal care package for Nigel. This arrangement would also be consistent with the ‘least restrictive principle’ which surrounds the application of Mental Health legislation. That said, although Nigel did not meet the criteria for immediate admission, the AMHP believed Nigel was mentally very unwell, and in need of immediate support. The court heard that such support would be available within a 4-hour target time, from the emergency Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team. However, the court was told that an AMHP, despite their role in the coordination of the mental health assessment and admission to hospital of a patient, were not permitted to make direct referrals to the emergency Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team. The court heard that the normal route for such referrals was via the GP Surgery, or primary care Mental Health Nurse, neither of whom in Nigel’s case would have been available before 08:00 on Monday 11 March 2024. Nigel’s fall which led to his death, occurred at 06:25 that morning. I am concerned, as had the AHMP in Nigel’s case been able to directly refer him to the Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team on the 9th March 2024, mental health professionals would have attended, and been able to provide additional support, advice and potentially additional treatment for Nigel, in all likelihood preventing his death.
×
  • 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.