Jump to content

Search the hub

Showing results for tags 'Inclusivity'.

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


  • 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


  • 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
  • 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
    • 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 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 Learning news archive
    • 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
  • Research, data and insight
    • Data and insight
    • Research
  • Miscellaneous


  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start

Last updated

  • Start

Filter by number of...


  • Start



First name

Last name


Join a private group (if appropriate)

About me



Found 37 results
  1. Content Article
    The involvement and understanding of the end user is pivotal to the success of any digital health solution, intervention and initiative. Healthcare companies and start ups can improve adoption by engaging members of the healthcare community and the public in creating better digital healthcare systems that will improve access to care, are more inclusive, augment existing systems and address the real immediate issues. Integrate technology into the overall patient journey, focus on improving the existing system and address the immediate challenges. Ensure relevance and suitability by co-designing the systems with the users, patients, care teams, and the other stakeholders if they will be involved in the care delivery process. Focus on the clinical specification of the disease while designing the tools. Develop an inclusive design with the help of the consumers to ensure all the pain points are addressed. Minimise selection bias by including marginalised community segments to ensure inclusivity. Implement comprehensive training and provide continuous technical support and improvement. Extend patient education beyond digital literacy to include health literacy to promote and encourage healthy behaviour in society. Incorporate training of caregivers and family members to promote better disease management. Include care teams and clinicians in the training and support programmes to ensure that key player understands how best to use the tools and data-driven systems. Ensure health data is stored and shared securely and ethically Include transparent data policies in the overall project guidelines that are available to the patients. Educate the patients so they understand when and how to give consent to information sharing. Develop comprehensive, transparent, and inclusive policies and guidelines promoting equal access. Encourage reimbursement schemes of digital tools and virtual care. Built-in flexible financial and payment models to reduce the cost of care.
  2. Event
    Join the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Improving the Representation of Women and Underrepresented Minorities in Clinical Trials and Research as it discusses its newly released report Improving Representation in Clinical Trials and Research: Building Research Equity for Women and Underrepresented Groups. This new report makes a compelling case for why we need more equitable participation in clinical trials and clinical research, including an economic analysis on the cost of health disparities in the United States. It provides a review of the barriers to having more equitable participation in clinical trials, describes strategies to overcome those barriers, and provides actionable recommendations to drive lasting change on this issue. The webinar will take place at 11:00-13:00 EST (16:00-18:00 GMT+1) Register for the webinar
  3. Event
    The Royal College of Midwives education and research conference 2022 - Ensuring every voice is heard: promoting inclusivity in education, research and midwifery care This exciting annual conference is aimed at all those involved or interested in midwifery education and research and the overall theme is promoting inclusivity in research and education. The conference is free for RCM members and £75 plus an admin fee for non-RCM members. The objectives of the conference are to: Give a platform to midwifery researchers and educators to highlight their work and spread understanding of their findings and of good practice Provide an opportunity for midwifery researchers and educators, those aspiring to be researchers and educators and others working in the maternity field to build their professional networks Enable those attending to learn about the latest evidence and innovations in midwifery education and research, particularly in relation to promoting inclusivity and reducing inequalities in midwifery education, research and practice. The conference has shared plenary sessions which include both education and research and breakout parallel sessions that focus on either education or research. The conference will have both invited speakers and those who have submitted an abstract that has been accepted for presentation. There will also be panel discussions for audience Q&As and practical workshops on literature searching and writing for publication. Overall conference themes The contribution of midwifery education and research to reducing inequalities and improving inclusion in maternity care, Hearing lesser heard voices to improve education, research and practice, Embedding the future midwife standards in education, research and practice Supporting the mental health of midwives, maternity staff, educators, student midwives and the women and families we serve. Book a place
  4. Event
    In this online event, the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics & Human Factors will be launching their new guidance packed with information on how human factors as a discipline can help address Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) issues. You’ll learn: How human factors can support the different protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. How human factors techniques and approaches contribute to EDI by increasing buy-in and engagement. How storytelling of lived experiences helps build a stronger sense of empathy. Who will this be of interest to? Are you an EDI or human factors professional eager to learn more about the relationship between these two areas? Are you a policy maker? Are you involved in dealing with human resources, UX and workplace issues that touch on EDI? If so, this webinar will be of interest to you. About the presenters Courtney Grant is a Senior Human Factors Engineer with twenty years’ experience across industry, consultancy and public service. Amanda Widdowson is Head of Human Factors Capability, Thales UK and Past President of the CIEHF. Abigal Wooldridge is Diversity lead at the US Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. How to book Register for your free place
  5. Content Article
    Survey findings Understanding information and asking for support One in five (20%) said they struggle to understand most of the information given by services. Over half (51%) had asked for support to understand information. Five in ten (53%) had asked for support to contact services. Four in ten (44%) had asked for support to communicate with staff. Getting support Three in ten (30%) said they rarely or never get the support they need. Two in ten (22%) had been refused information in a format they need. Over one in four (28%) had been refused support to understand healthcare information Other issues Over a third (38%) said not being provided with accessible information affected their mental health and wellbeing. Nearly half (48%) feel uncomfortable asking for accessible information. Over half (53%) said staff attitudes affected their ability to ask for support. Nearly half (47%) think how services communicate has got worse since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
  6. News Article
    From the end of 2021, a question on sexual activity of partners in areas where HIV is widespread will be removed from the donor safety check form, in an effort to increase inclusivity among donors. The changes will particularly improve the ease to donate blood for Black African donors. Currently, prospective donors are asked if they have recently had sex with a partner who may ever have been sexually active in an area where HIV is endemic, which includes most of sub-Saharan Africa. If they have, the donor will then be deferred for three months after the last sexual contact with that partner. This can often mean Black African and other potential donors in long-term relationships have been unable to donate blood. Now, the UK Government has outlined plans to remove the question from those asked in the donor safety check, opening the door to a greater number of donations. Increasing blood donor inclusivity for those who are Black African, Black Caribbean, and of Black mixed ethnicity is particularly important because they are more likely to have the rare blood sub-group, such as Ro, that many Black sickle cell patients need. The change, making it easier for people from these groups to donate, will create greater opportunities to meet the ongoing need for rarer blood types and help improve and save lives in the UK. Read full story Source: National Health Executive, 11 October 2021
  7. Content Article
    Key issues raised Certain core skills and behaviours should apply in any leadership context, and a light-touch national framework that provides a consistent approach to developing leaders needs to be created to support people to develop these. The review should emphasise the new operating environment the NHS is moving into through integrated care systems (ICSs) and place-based partnerships. The focus on integration and collaboration will require different leadership characteristics than those incentivised by a system driven by marketisation and competition. Establishing a culture of learning and improvement, with less emphasis on top-down performance management will be key to developing effective system leadership. The review must address the need to ensure greater diversity across NHS leadership. Progress has been made in some areas to improve levels of diversity, but there is still a long way to go. The review presents an opportunity to invest in current diverse talent management and succession planning, as at present the NHS is effectively squandering talent through lack of inclusion. NHS leaders will need to be actively involved in the implementation of the report’s recommendations, in order to ensure the best chance of achieving lasting improvements,
  8. Content Article
    It is well established that menstrual and menopausal hormones interact with certain medications. Varying levels of reproductive hormones throughout a woman’s menstrual cycle and lifespan have resulted in women historically being excluded from clinical trials. Female bodies have been perceived as ‘too hard’ and costly to research and, perhaps, unworthy of the effort. Author of ‘Invisible Women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men’ Caroline Criado Perez argues that “When [women] are included in tests they tend to be looked at in the early follicular phase of their menstrual cycle, when hormone levels are at their lowest – i.e. when they are superficially most like men. Most medical trials are done on male cells even though female cells react differently.”[1] But this approach has a major flaw – evidence gathered about the safety and effectiveness of a medication will not apply to a patient group that it has not been tested on. Different metabolism of medications between men and women is to be expected, as male and female bodies are biologically different, right down to the cellular level.[2] Lower body weight, slower digestion, less activity from intestinal enzymes and slower filtration by the kidneys are all factors that cause this difference. Medications can also have varying effects depending on the time they are taken in a woman’s menstrual cycle, as well as affecting the menstrual cycle itself. Where we lack data on these factors, we are left with a dangerous knowledge gap that has a real impact on the safety of women within healthcare. A 2020 research study that found that women experience up to twice as many adverse drug reactions as men.[3] Since the 1990s, there has been growing acknowledgement that understanding interactions between medications and female hormones and bodies is essential for patient safety. However, the impact of this historical issue persists; a 2017 research study found that the effects on different sexes of around one-third of drugs were still unknown.[4] If doctors lack information to safely offer and prescribe certain drugs to female patients, informed consent is undermined at its most basic level. A brief history of women and clinical trials Alongside concerns about additional costs[5] and the perceived complexity of including women in general clinical trials, lies the fact that trials for treatments specific to women have received far less funding and attention than those that affect men.[6] Clinical trials that include women of childbearing age have also suffered from a self-perpetuating cycle of inadequacy. Although the lack of appropriate clinical trials led to the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s in the first place, in its aftermath researchers became more wary of including women of childbearing age in clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration even introduced a precautionary ban on women of child-bearing age taking part.[7] But this move perpetuated the issue and had far-reaching consequences for medication safety for women. As the implications of these exclusions became clearer, US regulators made moves to redress the balance and make the case for including women in more clinical trials. In 1990, the US Office of Research on Women’s Health was established, with one of its aims being to “ensure that women are appropriately represented in biomedical and biobehavioral research studies, especially… clinical trials.” In 1993, the US passed a law that meant women could no longer be excluded from National Institute of Health (NIH)-funded research. It is harder to find information on the history of women and clinical trials in the UK, and a 2005 study reviewing clinical trial participation noted that “the issue of exclusion from trials of women, older people and ethnic minorities has been relatively neglected in the UK research community.”[8] The authors highlighted that, in the sample of trials they looked at, “USA trials were more inclusive than UK/European trials,” suggesting that legislating for inclusion makes a difference to representation. Evidence-gaps with serious consequences There are significant patient safety issues associated with this lack of knowledge. Prescribed dosages rarely take into account the sex of the patient,[9] and because male and female bodies metabolise medications at different rates, women may be prescribed inappropriate doses.[3] Women have been found to be more sensitive to beta blockers, opioids, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and antipsychotics.[9] The evidence gap is seen starkly in the link between adverse outcomes for women with heart failure and gender bias in research. Between 1987 and 2012, women made up only 25% of participants over 31 landmark trials for congestive heart failure,[1] and the result of this lack of data is that many heart medications are less effective in women than in men.[10] Add to this the fact that women are 50% more likely to be misdiagnosed during a heart attack, and it paints a worrying picture. Rethinking research during pregnancy and breastfeeding One group that has been excluded perhaps more than any other from clinical trials is pregnant women. As the 2020 Cumberlege Review ‘First Do No Harm: The report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety (IMMDS) Review’ states, “The risk of teratogenicity has meant women are largely excluded from clinical trials; as a result only a handful of medicines are licensed for use in pregnancy and the safety profiles of newer medicines in pregnancy are initially unknown.”[11] According to a 2011 study, the teratogenic risk in human pregnancy was “undetermined” for 98% of drug treatments approved by the FDA between 2000 and 2010, and the mean time it took for drugs to be assigned a more precise risk was 27 years.[12] This lack of knowledge about medications in pregnancy means that women struggle to make informed choices about the safest course of action for themselves and their babies. The IMMDS Review highlights the stark consequences of this, addressing the harm caused by the hormone pregnancy pill Primodos and the anti-epileptic drug sodium valproate, both of which cause birth defects. Available evidence suggests that valproate, which was used in the UK from 1971, causes physical malformations in 10% of children and autism and developmental delay in 40% of children when taken by mothers during pregnancy. However, “the system does not know” to this day the exact number of children affected by women taking valproate or Primodos during pregnancy. A register for tracking physical malformations caused by valproate was only established in 1996, in spite of concerns being raised about the drug from 1972, and is only a voluntary measure.[11] The suffering and pain caused to mothers, their children and their families by these drugs is unquantifiable. The Covid-19 pandemic has thrown fresh light on the importance of including pregnant women in medical research. The fact that they were largely excluded from testing vaccines and treatments[13][14] meant that pregnant women were left unprotected from Covid-19 for much longer than most of the population, despite being at higher risk of hospitalisation from the virus.[15][16] Pregnant women and their doctors were unable to make informed decisions about the risks posed by the vaccine because the data simply didn’t exist. Great care needs to be taken in deciding whether there is a benefit to including pregnant women in medical research, but the reality is that pregnancy and ill health are not mutually exclusive conditions, as Katherine Shubert of the Society for Women's Health Research notes, “People who are sick or have chronic conditions can become pregnant, and those who are pregnant can get sick or develop health conditions.” So there is a clear need to find out which treatments are effective and safe for pregnant women and their unborn children. In 2017, the US Government established a Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant women and Lactating Women, which made recommendations and published an implementation plan to address barriers to including pregnant and breastfeeding women in research. In the UK, the recent development of standard definitions and grading for adverse events in pregnant women [17] has the potential to speed up progress in developing new treatments for use during pregnancy. Encouraging women to take part in research studies and clinical trials This narrative that women, particularly pregnant women, shouldn’t take part in medical research may also have the effect of discouraging women from applying to take part. The US NIH has posited that women may be reluctant to take part because of fear and distrust of researchers, lack of knowledge about trials and interference with work or family responsibilities,[18] but there is limited research on the issues women see as barriers, and how to overcome them. Some research shows that women declined more often to participate because they perceived a higher risk of harm from trial participation than men.[19] Under-diagnosis also means fewer women are eligible for trials in certain areas, such as cardiovascular disease.[18] A more balanced future There is a way to go in closing the knowledge gap around sex and medications, but participation has improved over the last decade,[20] and work is being done to balance representation of the sexes in clinical trials. In the UK, the NIHR launched the INCLUDE Project in 2018 to increase participation of underserved groups in medical research, including women of child-bearing age and pregnant women.[21] As part of the 2017 EU Clinical Trial Regulation No 536/2014, trials based in the EU are obliged to ensure “the subjects participating in a clinical trial … represent the population groups, for example gender and age groups, that are likely to use the medicinal product investigated.”[22] Technology is also being used to make clinical trials more representative. An increasing number of trials are being designed to operate ‘virtually’, using remote monitoring and telemedicine to decrease the logistical burden of participating.[23] Some organisations are also using AI to more effectively match candidates to trials,[24] but existing bias will need to be taken into account when developing these algorithms. As we gain more knowledge of the unique ways in which female bodies and hormones interact with medications, there will be an ongoing need to make sure that both doctors and patients understand and can apply this information to use medications more safely. References 1 Gender data gap: Caroline Criado Perez on how healthcare is “systematically discriminating against women”. Evening Standard. 26 September 2019 2 Straface E, Gambardella L, Brandani M et al. Sex differences at cellular level: "cells have a sex". Handbook of experimental pharmacology. 2012:214:49-65 3 Zucker I, Predergast B. Sex differences in pharmacokinetics predict adverse drug reactions in women. Biology of Sex Differences. 2020:11:32 4 Karlsson Lind L, von Euler M, Korkmaz S et al. Sex differences in drugs: the development of a comprehensive knowledge base to improve gender awareness prescribing. Biol Sex Differ. 2017:8:32 5 Ravindran T, Teerawattananon Y, Tannenbaum C et al. Making pharmaceutical research and regulation work for women. The BMJ. 2020:371 6 'Women have been woefully neglected': does medical science have a gender problem? The Guardian. 18 December 2019 7 Fang A. Sex Bias in Pharmacological Studies. The Public Health Advocate. Spring 2021 8 Bartlett C, Doyal L, Ebrahim S et al. The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials. National Institute for Health Research. 2005:9:38 9 Whitley H, Lindsey W. Sex-Based Differences in Drug Activity. Am Fam Physician. 2009:80(11):1254-1258 10 Crompton S. Should medicine be gendered? Science Focus. 1 May 2019 11 Cumberlege J. First Do No Harm: The report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. Crown copyright. 2020. 12 Adam M, Polifka J, Friedman J. Evolving knowledge of the teratogenicity of medications in human pregnancy. Am J Med Genet. 2011:157:175-182 13 Whitehead C, Walker S. Consider pregnancy in COVID-19 therapeutic drug and vaccine trials. Lancet. 2020:395:92 14 Taylor M, Kobeissi L, Kim C et al. Inclusion of pregnant women in COVID-19 treatment trials: a review and global call to action. Lancet Glob Health. 2021:9:366-71 15 Zambrano L, Ellington S, Strid P et al. Update: Characteristics of Symptomatic Women of Reproductive Age with Laboratory-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Pregnancy Status — United States, January 22–October 3, 2020. Weekly. 2020:69(44):1641-1647 16 Coronavirus infection and pregnancy: Information for pregnant women and their families. Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists website. Accessed 7 March 2022 17 Spencer R, Hecher K, Norman G et al. Development of standard definitions and grading for Maternal and Fetal Adverse Event Terminology. Prenat Diagn. 2022:42(1):15- 26 18 Kim S, Menon V. Status of Women in Cardiovascular Clinical Trials. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2009:29:279–283 19 van Diemen J, Verdonk P, Chieffo et al. The importance of achieving sex- and gender-based equity in clinical trials: a call to action. European Heart Journal. 2021:42:2990-2994 20 Are medications and medical devices more dangerous for women? Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 18 July 2019 21 Improving inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research: Guidance from INCLUDE project. National Institute for Health Research. 7 August 2020 22 Sundseth, H. Right from the Start - Including more women in Clinical Trials. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. 5 March 2020 23 Longworth C. International Women’s Day: The gender gap in clinical trials. Pharmaphorum. 8 March 2021 24 Sikora S. Intelligent clinical trials: Transforming through AI-enabled engagement. Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions. 2020 Related reading Misogyny is a safety issue: a blog by Saira Sundar The normalisation of women’s pain ‘Women are being dismissed, disbelieved and shut out’ (Stephanie O'Donohue, November 2020) Regulatory flaws: Women were catastrophically failed in the mesh, Primodos and Sodium Valproate tragedies
  9. Content Article
    The 'Your Care, Your Way' campaign webpage features: Opportunities to share positive and negative experiences of care Information on rights under the Accessible Information Standard Stories from 6,200 people about their experiences of healthcare information Healthwatch's findings around whether NHS organisations are meeting the Accessible Information Standard Recommendations on how to fix the issues.