Search the hub

New powers for ministers to establish a ‘single patient record’ (SPR) in England was one of the headline-grabbing measures in the government’s new Health Bill, published earlier this month. The SPR was announced in the government’s 10-Year Health Plan last year. The aim is to bring together people’s NHS and social care data, like test results and letters, in one place to improve care.  The ambition is good. Virtually every major NHS digital strategy since 2002 has called for patient data to flow more freely across the system – for instance, between GPs and hospitals – to make care faster and safer. The SPR is the latest and most legislatively ambitious attempt to deliver this, acknowledging that voluntary and standards-based approaches have repeatedly fallen short. But making it happen is easier said than done. The Health Bill set out little detail about how the SPR will look and work in practice. And the experience of a long line of failed NHS IT programmes points to a mix of questions government will need to answer to build trust in the proposals. In this blog, the Health Foundation sets out four questions for SPR: How will the SPR actually work? How can patient and clinician trust be earned?  What will implementation look like? What kind of transformation will the SPR enable?

The term ‘neighbourhood’ when used in reference to health and care, often suggests a collective, cross-sector and/or community approach. A recent Digital Care Hub webinar investigated the latest updates connected to the NHS / DHSC’s Neighbourhood Heath Policy, what it might mean for adult social care providers, and what’s needed to unlock the digital systems and processes that will help make it a reality. If you missed it, the webinar can be viewed below.

This Health Services Safety Investigation Body (HSSIB) report examines patient safety in relation to electronic prescribing and medicines administration (ePMA). ePMA is software used to prescribe medication and create a record of the medication: that has been given, or due and not given to a patient. Most people admitted to hospital will receive medication, and most acute hospital trusts in England have ePMA functionality in at least part of their organisations. This report focuses on the procurement process used by acute hospital trusts to purchase new ePMA functionality and/or upgrade their existing ePMA functionality and how patient safety learning about ePMA is identified and shared across the healthcare system. It considers how legal, regulatory, standards and assurance functions apply in relation to ePMA safety. ePMA functionality has been shown to reduce some medication errors. However, the current national mechanisms (legislation, regulation, standards and assurance) for ensuring patient safety in relation to ePMA functionality may not adequately provide staff and healthcare organisations with the assurance that risk and hazard identification process are robust and/or share learning associated with the use of ePMA in an acute hospital setting. Findings There are no core national patient safety standards that inform either the design or procurement of ePMA. This can lead to unwarranted variation in functionality across and between ePMA, other electronic systems, and acute hospital trusts, which may pose challenges for staff when prescribing and administering medication. Current assurance mechanisms do not provide national oversight or enforcement of either manufacturer or healthcare provider compliance with legally mandated standards relating to digital clinical safety and interoperability of digital health technology. The safety risks associated with software such as ePMA are complex and may change rapidly. Legislation, regulation and standards may not keep up with the speed of technological change. Manufacturers must self-assess and report whether their ePMA is compliant with relevant standards for their products to be included on an NHS procurement framework. There is variation in the core safety standards identified by acute hospital trusts when procuring and contracting for ePMA functionality. This leads to trusts identifying safety requirements individually, with limited consistency in the approach taken across trusts. Reliance is placed on acute hospital trusts to determine whether ePMA manufacturers have interpreted the medical device regulations appropriately, and to assure themselves that the trust complies with relevant standards. Some trusts do not have the resources, skills and expertise to do this effectively. Digital safety and patient safety teams at local and national level may work in silos, with limited ability to share information or collaborate on ePMA-related decisions that impact on patient safety. There are challenges with identifying national safety learning relating to ePMA as this is not reliably captured, shared or identified through formal reporting routes. There is ongoing work to improve the NHS reporting system to capture digital-related patient safety incidents. There is a reliance on informal networks for sharing ePMA safety issues which means safety concerns may not always be shared with those who need to be aware. Some ePMA manufacturers, whose ePMA functionality is not registered as a medical device choose to apply equivalent governance and assurance measures as if it is a medical device. This is in addition to complying with the digital clinical safety standard (DCB0129). Acute hospital trusts face challenges prioritising and resourcing procurement decisions for ePMA functionality. This leads to challenges and patient safety issues when ePMA is implemented. Clinical safety officers (CSOs) may not be adequately resourced, meaning they have limited capacity to support in managing clinical risks associated with ePMA. There is variation in how the CSO responsibilities set out in the digital clinical standards are interpreted and implemented by trusts. NHS England is working on plans for a formal curriculum and potential accreditation to improve CSO skills and capabilities. HSSIB makes the following safety recommendations Safety recommendation R/2026/086: HSSIB recommends that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency ensures that: routes for manufacturers and healthcare organisations to engage with them are clear and accessible it reviews and provides further guidance and clarification on when electronic prescribing and medicines administration (ePMA) software should be considered a medical device. This will support how ePMA software can be appropriately classified and regulated to improve patient safety. Safety recommendation R/2026/087: HSSIB recommends that NHS England/Department of Health and Social Care establishes a national framework for core electronic prescribing and medicines administration (ePMA) safety. This will provide a clear set of minimum patient safety requirements, helping to reduce unwarranted variation in the safety of ePMA functionality. Safety recommendation R/2026/088: HSSIB recommends that NHS England/Department of Health and Social Care develops an external assurance framework for information standards notices relating to electronic prescribing and medicines administration (ePMA). This is to reduce unwarranted variation and improve patient safety through expert-led assurance processes. Safety recommendation R/2026/089: HSSIB recommends that NHS England/Department of Health and Social Care provides additional support to acute hospital trusts, in relation to: supporting healthcare providers to access digital clinical safety knowledge, capacity and capability integrating digital clinical safety and patient safety, including the associated terminology supporting robust assurance of whether electronic prescribing and medicines administration (ePMA) manufacturers comply with relevant standards in order to be considered for inclusion on an NHS procurement framework. This will support effective decision making and oversight by acute hospital trusts and reduce unwarranted variation in the understanding of, and approach to, adopting ePMA. Safety recommendation R/2026/090: HSSIB recommends that the Care Quality Commission reviews the sector-level assessment frameworks it is developing to include assurance of ongoing compliance with the digital clinical safety standard (DCB0160) for electronic prescribing and medicines administration (ePMA) software. This will help to ensure oversight of ePMA functionality to improve patient safety. HSSIB makes the following safety observations Safety observation O/2026/086: Commercial manufacturers can improve patient safety by applying the standards and expectations for a medical device when developing electronic prescribing and medicines administration (ePMA) functionality, to help provide further assurance to acute hospital trusts procuring or updating ePMA functionality. Safety observation O/2026/087: Commercial manufacturers and NHS organisations can improve patient safety by ensuring the sharing of safety learning about electronic prescribing and medicines administration (ePMA) functionality nationally via incident reporting systems and relevant safety forums. Safety observation O/2026/088: Commercial manufacturers and NHS organisations can improve patient safety by contributing to and engaging with ePRaSE (ePrescribing Risk and Safety Evaluation) processes to support ongoing improvement and optimisation of electronic prescribing and medicines administration (ePMA) functionality across the NHS.

This paper from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change considers how governments should weigh the risks and benefits of adopting AI in health when health systems everywhere are struggling to meet people’s needs. It proposes a framework for assessing new health technologies against current practice, focusing on comparative risk. The paper also outlines the practical steps that governments can take to create the conditions for safe adoption at scale, thereby improving services and outcomes for their populations.

Digitally enabled care is the appropriate application and integration of digital health tools and technologies in clinical settings to deliver, coordinate or enhance patient care. The Commission sets and stewards best practice for digital health to support high-quality care. Digital health enables better care when it is safe, integrated and trusted. The four priorities are: Embed digitally enabled care in clinical governance. Strengthen virtual care quality. Advance connected care through standardised data. Lead system-wide quality improvement in digitally enabled care.

Over the past few months, the King's Fund have spoken to nearly 60 health and care leaders about the opportunities and challenges presented by AI, and how they are leading their organisations through a period of rapid technological change. While many of the insights they shared are not unique to health and care, they speak directly to the realities of leading in an already stretched system. At the heart of this sits a central tension: the ‘stuck paradox’. Leaders feel an urgency to accelerate the use of AI alongside real constraints on their ability to act. These constraints range from limited resources and transformation capability to gaps in knowledge or confidence to make the right decisions. For many it is a combination of all of these. This long read shares ten key themes that have emerged from these initial conversations. The 'stuck paradox' What do we mean by productivity? Balancing risks and opportunities Differences across health and care settings Patient trust Widening inequalities Workforce displacement Workforce polarisation Governance and strategy National digital leadership was described as sub-optimal

The UK stands at a crossroads, where technological innovation, healthcare transformation, and economic renewal converge, forcing the nation to make decisive choices about its future path. As the UK navigates modest economic growth and a healthcare system under profound pressure, Generative AI has emerged not merely as a technological advancement but as a strategic catalyst capable of addressing pressing national imperatives. This report was commissioned by Healthcare UK and identified five strategic imperatives to position the UK as a global leader in healthcare AI and drive meaningful economic growth. Establish the UK as the global leader in healthcare AI Make the UK the first port-of-call for safe, effective Generative AI by establishing a premier evidence-generation hub, implementing a focused model development strategy, strengthening a national conformity-assessment hub, running adaptive, risk-based regulatory sandboxes, and projecting UK standards internationally so innovators can take a product from proof-of-concept to global market. Turn UK health data into a strategic growth engine Convert the health service’s comprehensive longitudinal data into an economic asset by creating a sovereign healthcare data resource, simplifying secure access, cultivating a domestic synthetic-data industry, offering incentives for UK-based development, and building the energy and compute infrastructure that keeps workloads on-shore and sustainable Secure public trust through transparency, co-production and patient empowerment Put citizens at the centre by engaging the public early and often, ensuring transparent, accountable benefit-sharing and data-use reporting, handing patients meaningful control over their data, and embedding co-production in every Generative AI project—demonstrating that economic growth and responsible use go hand-in-hand. Unlock capital and new commercial models for scale-up Fuel adoption through a UK Health Data Sovereign Wealth Fund, extending fit-for purpose funding pathways, fixing market fragmentation that hampers deployment, bridging healthcare, academia and industry, and piloting sustainable payment models that reward real-world outcomes Develop world-class healthcare AI workforce and leadership Equip the system to implement Generative AI safely by modernising healthcare education, professionalising the data workforce, enhancing digital leadership, strengthening procurement expertise, and rolling out streamlined implementation frameworks that let frontline teams adopt proven tools quickly and responsibly.

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and the vast data generated by modern clinical systems have driven the development of AI solutions in medical imaging, encompassing image reconstruction, segmentation, diagnosis, and treatment planning. Despite these successes and potential, many stakeholders worry about the risks and ethical implications of imaging AI, viewing it as complex, opaque, and challenging to understand, use, and trust in critical clinical applications. The FUTURE-AI guideline for trustworthy AI in healthcare was established based on six guiding principles: Fairness. Universality. Traceability. Usability. Robustness. Explainability. Through international consensus, a set of recommendations was defined, covering the entire lifecycle of medical AI tools, from design, development, and validation to regulation, deployment, and monitoring. In this paper, the authors describe how these specific recommendations can be instantiated in the domain of medical imaging, providing an overview of current best practices along with guidelines and concrete metrics on how those recommendations could be met, offering a valuable resource to the international medical imaging community.

Letter from Sir James Mackey, Chief Executive, NHS England covering priorities and a look ahead for the new financial year. Key points Outpatient transformation – shifting away from traditional outpatient models through a major expansion of Advice and Guidance and a reduction in unnecessary follow‑ups. A step‑change in reducing hospital bed‑days for highest‑risk cohorts – with neighbourhoods playing a central role in implementing proactive care models for high‑risk groups. Scheduling and access reform for urgent care – making it easier for patients to book urgent care appointments in GP practices, urgent treatment centres, or other appropriate settings, reducing avoidable ED attendances. Technology‑enabled productivity improvements – expanding the deployment of Ambient Voice Technology and a suite of tools to improve theatre utilisation, discharge flow, RTT validation, community waiting lists, Advice and Guidance, electronic prescribing in all trusts, and crisis response. The NHS App – accelerating efforts to expand the role of the App as the digital front door into the NHS, supporting more convenient and effective triage and navigation for patients. Payment reform – realigning the payment system to the service changes you are seeking to deliver, including new payment models for urgent and emergency care. Quality – putting quality back at the heart of everything we do, including the publication of a new quality strategy, the development of modern service frameworks focused on cardiovascular disease, sepsis, serious mental illness, frailty and dementia, children and young people, and palliative and end-of-life care, and testing new delivery models for secondary prevention to tackle variations in the uptake of high-impact CVD and diabetes interventions. Capability building and a focus on our people – launching the new Leadership College, which will be the most radical change to leadership development and talent management that the NHS has seen in over a decade.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is ushering in a new era, with the potential to reshape the world as we know it. In healthcare, it’s already starting to have an impact. AI can support earlier diagnosis and reduce the administrative burden on clinicians, giving them more time to focus on patient care. For patients, this could mean faster answers, more personalised treatment, and a healthcare system that responds better to their needs. In this blog, the Patient Safety Commissioner for England, Professor Henrietta Hughes, reflects on the ongoing work of the National Commission into the Regulation of AI in Healthcare and the need to work with partners across the system to explore both the opportunities and the challenges this brings. She also shares details of an upcoming Ask Me Anything webinar on these issues that she will be hosting on Wednesday 20 May 2026.