Search the hub

When Stuart Ball previously wrote for the hub, he described how his wife Rachel’s death was not the result of one single missed appointment or one incorrect clinical decision. It was the result of fragmentation—significant red flags recorded across time and across specialties, but never structurally reviewed together. Since then, Rachel’s case has been raised through a Parliamentary Question, Stuart has received written replies and there has been renewed discussion around the NHS 10 Year Health Plan. The Plan sets out a long-term ambition to move from reacting to illness towards predicting and preventing it. It speaks about digital integration, genomics and a single patient record. In this follow up blog, Stuart explains why this direction of travel is welcome, but how ambition and infrastructure are not the same as accountability. Stuart asks for an accountable model, with clear ownership, for cumulative hereditary risk review across time and specialties. "Rachel’s Rule: Protecting Today, For Tomorrow" In recent Parliamentary correspondence, it has been confirmed that hereditary cancer services are delivered through the Genomic Medicine Service, with referral based primarily on clinical and family history criteria, and with clinicians expected to maintain appropriate knowledge. The 10 Year Health Plan has been cited as the framework for longer term genomic expansion and reform. These responses clarify direction and capability. However, they do not clearly describe a mandated, accountable model for cumulative hereditary risk review across time and specialties. Rachel’s case was not a technology failure Rachel did not lack access to doctors. She did not lack access to records. She did not lack access to treatment. What she lacked was a defined point where someone was responsible for stepping back and asking: Does this pattern mean something more? She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer at a young age. Later, she developed a second primary ovarian cancer, and years later breast cancer. She had multiple liver hamartomas and ongoing clinical indicators recorded across different specialties. Each event was documented. None were structurally joined. There was no named owner for cumulative hereditary risk recognition. There was no mandated checkpoint requiring a review of the whole picture. And after diagnosis, there was no single, coordinated surveillance plan owned by one accountable role. This was not about individual clinicians failing. It was about system design. The 10 Year Plan: capability versus structure The NHS 10 Year Health Plan outlines important ambitions: Expansion of genomic capability. Better data integration. Personalised risk information. Digital coordination through shared records. These are enabling tools. But tools do not automatically create safety standards. A record is not a review. A risk score is not accountability. Current public responses confirm that hereditary cancer services operate through the Genomic Medicine Service, with referral based on clinical and family history criteria, and with clinicians responsible for maintaining knowledge. That describes capability and professional expectation. It does not clearly describe: A mandated longitudinal hereditary risk review checkpoint. A named accountable owner when cumulative red flags emerge. An automatic re-review trigger after second primary cancers. A defined operational standard for coordinated post-diagnosis surveillance. Without those elements, expanded genomics may still sit within a structurally fragmented system. The gap before diagnosis In Rachel’s case, hereditary risk was not recognised early enough. Importantly, she did not have a strong family history. Her risk lay in the pattern of events over time. If risk recognition depends heavily on family history or opportunistic identification, patients without obvious family clustering remain vulnerable. A structured, repeatable review process—triggered by defined criteria such as early cancer, second primaries, unusual pathology, or cross-specialty indicators—introduces a simple but powerful safeguard: Someone must pause. Someone must review the whole picture. Someone must document a decision. Ownership reduces diffusion of responsibility. The gap after diagnosis Diagnosis does not end the safety question. In many cases, it increases the need for coordination. In cancer, the consequences of missed hereditary risk often unfold over years. Surveillance can become fragmented across hospitals, clinics and appointment systems. Imaging may focus on one organ or site without stepping back to ask whether a broader, coordinated plan is required. Rachel received treatment and follow-up. At the time, we believed the cancer had been dealt with. Six years later, it returned and she died. Earlier recognition does not guarantee different outcomes in every case. But delay reduces available options. Fragmented surveillance compounds risk. That is why Rachel’s Pathway calls for: One named owner for surveillance coordination. One written, shared plan across services. Defined re-review points when new pathology emerges. Clarity about what surveillance is intended to detect, and what it is not. This is not about demanding universal scanning. It is about preventing predictable fragmentation. Why interim standards matter The 10 Year Plan is long term. Delivery will be phased. Large reforms are subject to operational pressures and parliamentary cycles. Meanwhile, patients continue to present. In safety critical systems, known vulnerabilities are usually mitigated while reform is being built—not left exposed until infrastructure is complete. An interim standard does not compete with the 10-Year Plan. It complements it. It introduces structural accountability now, while contributing to durable long-term design. The central question This ultimately comes down to one question: Who owns cumulative hereditary risk recognition and coordinated surveillance when patterns emerge across time and across specialties? If the answer is “all clinicians,” responsibility risks being diluted. If the answer is “no one specifically,” then the vulnerability remains. Clear ownership is not a technological issue. It is a patient safety issue. Rachel’s Rule is not a rejection of genomic ambition. It is a call to translate ambition into accountable structure: One owner. One review. One coordinated plan. That is how patterns stop being missed. That is how fragmentation is reduced. And that is how long-term ambition becomes real patient safety. Further information about the full proposals for Rachel’s Rule and Rachel’s Pathway can be found at rachelsrule.org. If you would like to support the campaign, please consider signing and sharing the petition at change.org/RachelsRule. Further reading on the hub: How one woman’s missed referrals exposed a systemic gap in hereditary cancer care: Why I'm campaigning for Rachel's Rule 10 Year Health Plan for England: fit for the future Rachel's Rule: Signs in plain sight by Stuart Ball Top picks: Rare diseases

At a Patient Safety Management Network meeting last year, Amy Wood gave a presentation on her experience of managing change in the NHS. Speaking about her time at Chase Farm Hospital, Amy presented to the Network how Chase Farm Hospital moved to a new hospital building and implemented a new Electronic Patient Record (EPR) system whilst ensuring patient safety was maintained. We asked Amy to share her insights in a blog for the hub. Amy highlights the challenges she faced, how she engaged staff, the issues that came up and key takeaways from it. Background Chase Farm Hospital, part of Royal Free London, is a small elective, surgical hospital. At the time, it was made up of old buildings, not fit for purpose, spread across a large area. Example of the old building From August to September 2018, we moved the hospital to a new building with theatres, including a barn theatre and a 50-bedded ward. The new hospital had been designed to be paperless and so we also had to implement a new EPR system at the same time. Example of the paper-based system before the move The challenges As with all big organisational changes, there was a lot of meetings held with various staff members. At the time, the Royal Free London was divided into business units, each with their own executive management teams. One of the challenges was that not all of the staff who worked at Chase Farm Hospital and who would be affected by the changes were managed by our business unit. This meant they weren’t always invited to meetings and they didn’t always hear the crucial information. We had to find ways to ensure that these staff not only heard the key messages but that they felt included in the process. The move meant there was going to be new ways of working required and, as expected, we encountered reluctance to change with some staff. Naively we saw this change as two different projects, not one big change. However, when we spoke with staff we realised that they saw the projects as one big change and that we were going paperless because we were moving to the new hospital building. This became apparent when we began to engage with staff in small groups or one on one. We had to weigh up change fatigue with the benefits achieved of finishing the project. Engaging staff There was a long period of working with staff beforehand. It took 5 years to build the new hospital building, so we had time. We knew that for this to work well we needed to engage staff. We made sure that we spent lots of time with staff preparing them and listening to their concerns. We recognised early on that most staff couldn't attend dedicated meetings as generally these are only attended by managers. This meant that messages were not always being conveyed to staff and that frontline staff were not given the opportunity to ask questions or raise concerns directly to the decision makers. We needed to meet staff where they were, so the governance team were asked by the medical director to block out time to go to clinical departments and admin offices to speak with staff directly. Why the governance team? Because we were already well-known to many of the staff and had a reputation for being people that they could be open and honest with. We had the skills to listen to staff concerns, reassure them, and tactfully reiterate their concerns to senior leaders and decision makers. Through this engagement, we were able to adjust communications and identify areas or individuals who may benefit from additional at-the-elbow support. There was involvement from staff in the design. The new building was designed to use space and resources more efficiently; some old workflows were not going to work in the new building. An example was that we moved to a ‘barn theatre’ with four surgeries going on at the same time in one operating theatre. In our old building, staff were used to single theatre rooms. We had to talk through the benefits of this with staff but also hear their concerns. Some people didn’t want to move, they liked their current set up and there was some anxiety about the move and the digitisation. We identified those who may struggle more and made plans to make additional support available to them if they wanted it. We found the influencers—those who were going to champion the move and the changes—and they helped us get their colleagues on board. For the EPR part of the project there were staff members who had a greater interest and underwent 'superuser' training to be able to support their colleagues. We provided additional at-the-elbow support to those that wanted it. We took staff around for tours of the new building and the layout at different stages. How did it go? Not everything will go as planned or expected. How you respond to these issues is important. There were issues daily and we made sure we did huddles and had floor walkers to capture these issues quickly, escalate them to those that can resolve them. Importantly, our floor walkers fed-back to staff so that they knew the issues were being addressed. The move occurred in a phased approach, with new services moving every few days. As each new service moved, their department leaders joined the huddles. There was shared learning between services, with early-moving departments helping those that moved in later. We continued to hold regular huddles until all initial snagging issues had been raised and resolved, just reducing frequency when it felt right. Department leaders were advised that they were welcome at all huddles but could stop attending when they felt it was no longer of benefit to them. We did the same thing when we went live with the new EPR system. Once staff were in the new building, we asked them how it was working. On paper we had great pathways that would work well but in reality in some places the pathways were not working. Luckily the flexibility of the design of the hospital and the honesty of the staff in raising when workflows didn’t work meant that we were able to review and amend pathways. There were still things that we didn’t pick up on. Some staff weren’t happy. But we listened. It was important that the leadership team listened and were responsive to the feedback. We had good relationships with the CEO and Medical Director and we were able to talk to them and feed back. They took this onboard really well and discussed how to address it. It’s important the leaders are visible to staff and do walkabouts. Even though the staff may not always tell them how they felt, it was still important they were seen. Some staff were initially suspicious of the governance team being in their departments, particularly in clinical areas and with staff that did not know us previously. There was concern that we may be there to audit them or tell them off. We addressed this by introducing ourselves and explaining why we were there. Something that really helped us gain trust was being able to fix something for staff, either in the moment or by raising it to the team that could fix it. Importantly, we always tried to feedback directly to staff so that they knew that we had listened and were trying to help them. There were also patient facing elements. We had factored in the obvious changes that would affect the patients; for example, with the check-in process, and this was worked through. However, other factors had not been considered; we recognised early on after the move that more support was needed for patients to navigate the pathways and the changes that impacted them. Key take aways Team approach – decision makers, experts and influencers. Staff engagement – do not expect staff to come to you, you need to go to them. Plan for issues – how are you going to pick up issues and feedback to staff. The project doesn’t end at implementation. To earn staff trust – listen and fix something for them. Going live isn’t the end. There has to be continued conversations and observations. Find the truth. The new Chase Farm Hospital Patient Safety Management Network You can apply to join any of our networks by signing up to the hub today. When you complete the registration form you’ll see a section called ‘Join a private group’, please tick the box by the relevant Network. If you are already a member of the hub, please email [email protected].

On the 27 November 2025, the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) published a new report looking at patient safety issues associated with electronic patient record (EPR) systems. It is a thematic review which draws on findings from investigation reports by HSSIB and its predecessor organisation – the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch (HSIB). In this article, Patient Safety Learning sets out its reflections on the report’s findings. 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, Patient safety issues associated with electronic patient record (EPR) systems – a thematic review, summarises and analyses their previous investigation findings relating to EPR systems.[1] Its intention is to identify themes arising from these investigations and to share any additional safety learning. Patient Safety Learning welcomes HSSIB undertaking this work. We contributed to this report during its consultation stage and, in this article, we set out our reflections on its findings. EPR systems An EPR is a set of electronic information about a single patient. It can include: a patients’ own notes test results observations by a range of different clinicians prescribed medications. EPR systems are a way of managing clinical information with the intention of making it more easily accessible to both patients and healthcare professionals. They are becoming increasingly common in healthcare settings across the world and are a core part of how patient care is delivered. Patient Safety Learning perspective When safely implemented, EPR systems can help to support and improve care and treatment. However, there are also significant patient safety risks associated with their implementation and use. At Patient Safety Learning we highlighted a number of these issues last year in our report, Electronic patient record systems: Putting patient safety at the heart of implementation.[2] We believe patient safety should be core to all EPR systems, with robust safety considerations integrated throughout every stage of their introduction: Development Patient safety must be at the heart of the initial procurement, design, configuration and development of EPR systems. There should be a focus on: Interoperability (the ability to work with other computer systems or software used by the organisation to exchange and make use of information). Usability and design for safety, taking a user centred systems and human factors approach. Designing EPRs in collaboration with the staff who will use them. Rollout As EPRs are introduced into organisations, it is vital that the appropriate training and support is provided to staff. There needs to be: Sufficient usability testing (allowing staff who would be using these systems the opportunity to try them and provide feedback) Time allowed for amendments being made to reflect the most efficient and effective processes. Staff should not have to undertake significant workarounds to make an EPR functional; it needs to meet their needs as healthcare professionals and decision makers. A greater role for EPR manufacturers in providing training and support to staff. Implementation Once an EPR is in place, monitoring how it is operating in practice and learning and acting on any risk assessments, incidents or near misses that take place relating to this, is essential. In each of these stages there should be clear steps to involve and engage both patients and frontline staff as part of this process. HSSIB report Considering the patient safety issues associated with EPR systems, HSSIB’s new report states: “The review found that EPR systems could contribute to the risks of patient care being missed, delayed or incorrect. These risks were persistent despite national recommendations and actions seeking to mitigate them.” They grouped their findings into three main categories: Choosing an EPR system capable of meeting the needs of an organisation Implementing an EPR system that meets the needs of users Seeking feedback and ongoing EPR system optimisation Choosing an EPR system capable of meeting the needs of an organisation Before introducing a new EPR system into a healthcare organisation, it is vital that the appropriate planning and preparation takes place. Introducing these systems should be recognised as major organisational change programmes, and as such require the requisite investment of time and commitment from organisational leaders. HSSIB’s report picks up on a number of issues in this area, highlighting that: Organisations do not always have a clear understanding of their requirements/needs from an EPR system, limiting their ability to match requirements to system capabilities. Choosing an EPR system at the procurement stage is complicated by this lack of understanding, which is often compounded by limited awareness of how these systems meet national requirements, including interoperability (the ability to work with other IT systems) and clinical risk-management standards. They found evidence of limited support at a national or regional level to help organisations identify their local requirements/needs for an EPR system. Implementing an EPR system that meets the needs of users At Patient Safety Learning we believe that healthcare professionals and those who will be the primary users of EPR systems should be involved in each stage of their design, planning and implementation. HSSIB’s report also underlines the importance of this, noting issues including: Implementation of an EPR system was found to be a complex project that did not always effectively engage users to ensure it was safe and successful. When users were involved in EPR system implementation they were not always representative of those using the system in practice, with difficulties releasing staff from clinical work to contribute to implementation. Staff training in how to use an EPR system was often perceived to be limited. It did not always reflect how a system would be used in the ‘real world’, or offer advice on what to do if the EPR system failed. Seeking feedback and ongoing EPR system optimisation In our response as part of the consultation on this report, we emphasised the importance of the ongoing monitoring of how an EPR system operates after it has been introduced. This is a key issue we also highlighted in our report last year, connected with the often discussed concept in patient safety of the difference between ‘work as imagined’, ‘work as prescribed’ and ‘work as done’.[3] [4] With EPR systems, we need to look at the difference between how these are intended to work, and how they work in practice. Once an EPR system is live, there should be ‘continuous feedback loops’ to understand, and learn from, how it is working. We are therefore pleased to see that HSSIB highlight a number of these issues in their report, including: Staff reported limited routes for raising concerns about poor functionality and usability of EPR systems, and limited action when concerns were reported that could impact on patient safety. Ongoing management of EPR systems, including upgrades and changes, did not always align with the digital standards for clinical risk management. EPR systems were not always kept up to date in line with national guidance and standards, or changes to internal care processes. There were limited opportunities for organisations to share their experiences of implementing and optimising EPR systems for the benefit of other organisations. In seeking to assure the clinical safety of their health IT software, organisations in the NHS are required to meet a formal standard titled DCB0160: Clinical Risk Management: its Application in the Deployment and Use of Health IT Systems. This standard, which is completed by a trust purchasing a system: “… provides a set of requirements suitably structured to promote and ensure the effective application of clinical risk management by those health organisations that are responsible for the deployment, use, maintenance or decommissioning of Health IT Systems within the health and care environment.”[5] DCB0160 documentation is typically completed by the clinical safety officer before the system is launched. The standard suggests that this also applies post launch. We think this exercise would be of particular value in the case of EPR systems, if it was also completed several months after launch as such a system may look and operate quite differently to the way it was expected to pre-launch. At Patient Safety Learning, we believe that organisations should consider completing a DCB0160 post-implementation. Concluding comments This new report from HSSIB makes a strong and valuable contribution on the subject of EPR systems and patient safety. The local-level learning prompts in the report, intended to help organisations consider and mitigate risks around procuring, implementing and optimising EPR systems, are particularly helpful. EPR systems have the potential to improve patient treatment and safety, increase efficiency and reduce the costs of healthcare. However, there are patient safety risks associated with their introduction and implementation. To fully realise their benefits, we need to ensure patient safety considerations are at the heart of their design, development and rollout. References HSSIB. Patient safety issues associated with electronic patient record (EPR) systems – a thematic review. 27 November 2025. Patient Safety Learning. Electronic patient record systems: Putting patient safety at the heart of implementation. 31 July 2024. Steven Shorrock. The Varieties of Human Work. 5 December 2016. Claire Cox. Putting the writing on the wall: Explaining work as imagined vs work as done. 1 August 2023. NHS England, DCB0160: Clinical Risk Management: its Application in the Deployment and Use of Health IT Systems, Last Accessed 26 November 2025.

At Patient Safety Learning, we believe listening and learning from different perspectives, expertise and experiences is essential in understanding the complexities, challenges and potential solutions around patient safety issues. Reducing avoidable harm in health and social care cannot be done in isolation; collaboration is key.  In this blog, we reflect on some of this year’s activities and celebrate people who are working together for safer care and recognising the value of different perspectives.  Background In 2019 we launched a free online platform for anyone interested in patient safety - the hub – designed to help people share learning. Since then, the hub has had over 1.4 million visitors, and today it is a thriving, global community of people. By connecting patients, frontline staff, managers, families, researchers, medtech companies, regulators, policy makers, patient safety partners and many more, the hub offers a unique space for people to work together to improve patient safety. More recently, the hub has also provided an online space and support for several networks of people involved in patient safety. We are helping to facilitate deep and psychologically safe conversations among peers about some of the most challenging and inspiring aspects of patient safety. Discussions are varied, with members exploring topics like how to engage with patients and families following an incident, building a just culture, and how best to collaborate for safety. Celebrating collaborative working Experts in a room Electronic patient records (EPRs) are a way of managing clinical information with the intention of making it more easily accessible to both healthcare professionals and patients. EPR systems have the potential to improve quality and safety, patient treatment, increase efficiency and reduce the costs of healthcare. However, it has become increasingly evident that introducing EPR systems comes with serious patient safety risks. In June, Patient Safety Learning held a virtual roundtable session with a group of experts who had been affected by EPR issues. Together, they discussed the patient safety risks and avoidable harm associated with these systems. Those collaborative conversations became a catalyst for our new report, in which we set out ten principles that aim to put patient safety considerations at the heart of the design, development and rollout of EPR systems. The report gained interest across digital publications, social media and national news, and crucially with key stakeholders in healthcare. A great example of how the collaborative discussions from a roundtable event can help instigate further debate. Earlier in the year, we worked with AQUA to facilitate a workshop (hosted by the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh) for Patient Safety Partners and their managers. With the Patient Safety Partner role only being introduced recently, we wanted to gather those who had rapidly become experts through experience, to share their early insights and learning. Conversations were rich and varied, but the overall focus of the day was to start to identify ‘what good looks like’ in relation to embedding the role effectively. A number of themes were covered including recruitment and induction, role clarity, influencing and impact. We captured these conversations in a series of blogs which have now formed part of our recently published Patient Safety Partners toolkit of resources. We have received overwhelmingly positive feedback on the toolkit, designed to help Patient Safety Partners, their managers and anyone interested in embedding the role well. The power of community the hub is home to a growing number of networks for people involved in patient safety, including patient safety managers and specialists, Patient Safety Partners and organisational leaders with patient safety expertise and responsibility. These communities of interest are forums that provide peer support, sharing of knowledge, and examples of good practice from the ‘patient safety frontline’. Building on conversations taking place in the network meetings, we worked with the Patient Safety Management Network and the Patient Safety Education Network to plan an event. In the autumn this came to fruition, and we held our first Patient Safety Symposium focused on implementing the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) tools and methods. We also launched a new book at the event - ‘The emerging applications of safety science’, a wonderful collaboration with many contributors. The event provided a fantastic opportunity for people to come together and have more of those energetic network conversations and share valuable insights in person. Together, attendees were able to work through, and learn how to apply those ‘how to’ tools. It was great to have such a diverse range of participants at this event. One table featured student nurses, a representative from NHS England, a GP and a senior director from an independent trust. This was a genuine and much valued flattened hierarchy that enabled confident engagement and shared learning. Feedback was very positive with many people highlighting the value of working collaboratively on the day, and beyond. “It was an excellent networking opportunity, and I have since been in contact with a new peer. We have shared our current Patient Safety Incident Investigation reports and provided a critical friend approach to each other.” Attendee. Feedback on being part of the Patient Safety Management Network also highlights the impact of their regular meetings: "The network has been an excellent platform to learn from peers across the country. I have not come across any other platform such as this. I use it as my go-to for practical problem-solving ideas and there are always plenty of them, for all sectors.” Patient Safety Specialist at an Integrated Care Board. The collective wisdom and innovative thinking that emerges from the networks highlights the power of community when it comes to making progress in patient safety. It is unsurprising perhaps that we are increasingly being approached by NHS England and other key patient safety stakeholders who are seeking to collaborate with the networks we support. This presents valuable opportunity to feed that collective frontline wisdom into wider policy development. Patient focused collaboration 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 change and in holding the system to account. Our editorial team has worked with many people who have been directly or indirectly impacted by unsafe care and want to share their insights to inform positive change. Their voices and experiences provide a powerful source of knowledge, and we are grateful that so many have felt able to share these with us through the hub. With an increased emphasis on patient and family involvement in patient safety in the NHS, we are beginning to hear more examples of staff and organisations actively seeking ways to listen to the views and insights of patients. Embedding the Patient Safety Partner role will be key to enabling this. In a presentation for the hub, Lea Tiernan, Patient Safety Engagement Manager, and Armine Afrikian, a Patient Safety Partner, explain how they have worked together to develop the role at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. It provides an excellent example of how trusts can work truly collaboratively with Patient Safety Partners and support them to influence safety at a strategic and operational level. There are many people and organisations working hard to evidence the power of engaging patients in safety improvements and research. This year, we spoke to Anthony O’Connor, who explained the benefits of co-production and listening to lived experience, in two blogs for the hub. We also worked with UK charity Sands, to shine a light on their listening project. Julia Clark and Mehali Patel from their research team draw on the project to illustrate the value of working with bereaved parents. Julia and Mehali explain why hearing and amplifying these unique insights is vital to developing safer, more equitable neonatal and maternity care. In a blog for the hub, Miriam Levin from Demos highlighted the findings from their report “I love the NHS but…” Preventing needless harms caused by poor communication in the NHS. The report looked at everyday harms caused to people as they move through the NHS and try and get the care they need. Demos spoke to 2000 patients and staff about their experiences of health and care, and poor communication from the NHS came out as a significant issue for many people. Summary It is clear that a variety of voices, experiences and expertise is hugely beneficial when it comes to making progress in patient safety. At Patient Safety Learning we continue to proactively seek opportunities to collaborate with others, share individual and collective insights through the hub, and influence key stakeholders and policies. Over the coming months no doubt the networks and the hub will continue to thrive, fuelled by the power of collaboration and the many voices that contribute. As people come together to address patient safety challenges, our collective understanding and knowledge around potential solutions can only deepen and refine – paving the way for a patient-safe future. Join the hub Do you have insights to share around patient safety? Are you a member of the hub? Why not join our global community today (it’s free and easy to sign up). When you’ve registered, you’ll be able to submit an article, share a resource, start conversations in the forum and collaborate with other members. You’ll also have the option to request to join the networks we support. Related content Developing the Patient Safety Partner role: Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust share their approach Patient engagement resource section on the hub Collaborating for safety: We need to make space for each other NHS England and NHS Improvement: Framework for involving patients in patient safety (29 June 2021)