Jump to content

Search the hub

Showing results for tags 'Information sharing'.

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
  • 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
    • 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
  • 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


  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start

Last updated

  • Start

Filter by number of...


  • Start



First name

Last name


About me



Found 82 results
  1. Event
    “Improving patient experience is not simple. As well as effective leadership and a receptive culture, trusts need a whole systems approach to collecting, analysing, using and learning from patient feedback for quality improvement. Without such an approach it is almost impossible to track, measure and drive quality improvement.” NHS England and Improvement 2019 Convenzis are excited to share details of our 1st Virtual NHS Patient Experience Conference to date, this live and interactive session will focus on key findings from the 2019 British Social Attitudes survey and discuss how the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak affected patient satisfaction and assurance. Register
  2. Event
    On November 29, 1999, the Institute of Medicine released a report called To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System, the report reviewed the status of patient safety in the US and UK, 20 years on and the NHS have released The NHS Patient Safety Strategy. Within the newly developed strategy, the NHS has three strategic aims that will support the development of patient safety culture & a patient safety system. This virtual conference will discuss the 2020, COVID-19 response best practice, along with some national policy insights and international trends. Register
  3. Content Article
    The aim of the Standard is to establish a framework and set a clear direction such that patients and service users (and where appropriate carers and parents) who have information or communication needs relating to a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive: ‘Accessible information’ (‘information which is able to be read or received and understood by the individual or group for which it is intended’). ‘Communication support’ (‘support which is needed to enable effective, accurate dialogue between a professional and a service user to take place’). Such that they are not put “at a substantial disadvantage…in comparison with persons who are not disabled” when accessing NHS or adult social services. This includes accessible information and communication support to enable individuals to: Make decisions about their health and wellbeing, and about their care and treatment. Self-manage conditions. Access services appropriately and independently. Make choices about treatments and procedures including the provision or withholding of consent.
  4. Event
    More than 1,900 delegates have attended Health and care explained, ranging from chief executives of charities to NHS leaders, students and representatives from government bodies. Returning for its ninth run, The King Fund's conference gives you the opportunity to interact with our policy experts, who will guide you through the latest health and social care data and explain how the system in England really works. You will hear balanced and honest views about the pressures and opportunities facing the system in 2021. Register
  5. News Article
    In a bid to fight against misinformation about the coronavirus vaccines, a group of scientists from all over the world have created an online guide to building a ‘truth sandwich’. The guide serves to arm people with practical tips, up-to-date information and evidence to talk reliably about the vaccines, and enable them to constructively challenge associated myths. The scientists, led by the University of Bristol, are appealing to everyone to understand the facts set out in the 'COVID-19 Vaccine Communication Handbook', follow the guidance and spread the word. Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, the lead author of the guide, said: “Vaccines are our ticket to freedom and communication about them should be our passport to getting everyone on board." “The way all of us refer to and discuss the COVID-19 vaccines can literally help win the battle against this devastating virus by tackling misinformation and improving uptake, which is crucial." Read full story Source: The Independent, 7 January 2021
  6. Content Article
    There are a few key phrases that we may hear or read if we are told we need a surgical procedure: ‘shared decision making’, ‘consent to treatment’ and ‘informed consent’ to name a few. A common reaction is to see these processes as the small print, not dissimilar to ticking a box to agree to terms and conditions we almost certainly haven’t read. We all know deep down we should read them, but really, what’s the harm? And who has the time? When it comes to a surgical procedure, the implications can be significant, and in this blog post I will attempt to explain why. I will describe what those terms really mean, and why, as patients, we must all take some time to familiarise ourselves with anything we are putting our signature to. Anecdotally, surgeons tell me that many patients defer to their expertise when it comes to making a decision about a surgical procedure. They are, after all, trained to a very high level and, by definition, experts in their field. We are right to trust and rely on them to give us all the information we need. However, we also need to understand any potential consequences so we can make a decision. While it’s appropriate to defer to the experts for information, they are not the ones making the decision to go ahead or not. Moving away from a paternalistic relationship This brings me to my first definition, ‘shared decision making’. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) defines it as: ‘…when health professionals and patients work together. This puts people at the centre of decisions about their own treatment and care.’ You can read the full NICE definition here. This means that the relationship between the health professional (in most surgical cases, this is the surgeon) and the patient should not be paternalistic. While it is accepted that the health professional is the expert in this scenario, it is not appropriate for him or her to tell the patient what to do. We now have the Montgomery ruling, which transformed the patient consent journey, shifting the power from the clinician to the patient. I don’t have the space to describe this in detail, but I would recommend taking five minutes to read about the Ruling and to watch the short interview with Nadine Montgomery. The resultant ruling of this case acknowledged the importance of ‘material risk’, stating: ‘Material risk is a risk that is deemed to be of significance by an individual patient rather than by a body of doctors.’ So, what does all of this actually mean for patients? Well, most importantly, it means the conversation about treatment has gone from largely being one way, to an open, two-way discussion. The result of this conversation should hopefully be ‘consent to treatment’ – my next definition. It really is what it says on the tin. But it goes much further than ticking a box or signing on the dotted line. Making a decision to have surgery may be the biggest decision you make in your life. You may not feel that you have a choice, and in many cases, if you don’t go ahead with it, the problem will continue, worsen and it may be life-threatening. This, however, does not mean you should just say ‘yes’ without giving it due consideration. Have you been told about alternatives to the surgery being offered? What about the risks and potential complications? What would happen if you said ‘no’, both in the near and distant future? What information should patients be given? This is where ‘informed consent’ comes in. Informed consent means the patient has been made aware of the Benefits, Risks, Alternatives and doing Nothing by a qualified health professional. This is known among health professionals as ‘BRAN’. BRAN is essential for equipping us to make decisions about our treatment. But how is this information actually prepared and presented to us? In my role as Content Director at EIDO Healthcare, I am responsible for getting the written versions of this information from the surgeon who writes it to the health professional sharing it with patients. But what is that information, and what part does it play in shared decision making and informed consent? In short, it is written information about the procedure your surgeon has recommended. Many hospitals and/or surgeons write their own information, but at EIDO we maintain one version of each document that is used by hundreds of hospitals and surgeons both here in the UK and elsewhere around the world. Either option is fine, as long as the information is reviewed and updated regularly. Don’t be shy in asking your surgeon about how the information you’ve been given has been prepared. Helping patients access clear information At EIDO, all of our leaflets are written by specialists, reviewed by other clinicians and edited by experts in plain English. They are regularly updated and, because they are stored online, updates can be made almost immediately. We also have accreditation from the Patient Information Forum and work with the Patients Association to ensure they are accessible. We offer large and giant print versions, screen readers, ‘Easy Reads’ and a number of translations. Whether the leaflet you see is an EIDO one or not, it should contain relevant information relating to BRAN. This is vital in terms of patient safety. How can someone be expected to make a decision on something so important without knowing all the facts? Risks and benefits are subjective Arguably, the benefits will be of most interest to patients. There is a problem somewhere in your body and you need it to be fixed. But what about the risks? You need to think about how the operation will affect your life in the future. You need to measure the risks against the benefits. If you are a singer, for example, you may not want to risk an operation on your thyroid that could change your voice. Using the same analogy, if you’d like to protect your voice, are there any alternatives that would be preferable specifically to you? What if you did nothing, or waited for a few months, or even years? All of this information should be supplied by the health professional who is advising you to have the surgery. The pre-written information will go into general details, but this alone is not enough. It needs to be a two-way conversation with the opportunity for both of you to ask and answer questions. You can ask for a copy of any notes made about your treatment options, so you can refer back to that conversation. Some people find it helps to talk it through with a friend or loved one. You will have time before the actual procedure to digest this information before signing the consent form. Read the information You should be given information to take home (or it may be emailed to you). I cannot stress enough how important it is that you read this carefully, make notes if you need to, and think about questions you might want to ask your surgeon. The reason for this is twofold. The first, most obvious one, is that you need to know how to prepare for the procedure, what to expect afterwards, and how to take care of yourself in the following weeks. The second reason takes us back to those pesky terms and conditions… Legal implications When you sign the consent form, you are effectively saying you have read and you understand the BRANs for your procedure. This means that if something goes wrong and it was not mentioned or clearly explained to you, you are in a good position to make a claim against the hospital. It also means that if the risk was in the document, you will have a weaker claim. While it is hard to prove that someone has actually read a leaflet, and your signature is not the only consideration, signed consent forms have been used in such cases to dismiss claims made by patients. These documents exist to protect both the patient and the healthcare provider. Litigation against health professionals and providers has grown in recent years, demonstrating an increased understanding by patients of the care we should expect to receive. We are not merely recipients of care; we should also be involved in the direction it takes. The knock-on effect of this growing number of informed patients has resulted in better information. Many patients still choose not to engage fully, and some will even ask their surgeon to make the decision for them (although they will still need to sign a consent form). This is also perfectly acceptable, if that is their preference. The important thing is that they have been offered the information and have been given the opportunity to ask questions, digest the information and then make an informed decision. Julie Smith, Content Director, EIDO Healthcare.
  7. News Article
    Do-not-resuscitate orders were wrongly allocated to some care home residents during the COVID-19 pandemic, causing potentially avoidable deaths, the first phase of a review by England’s Care Quality Commission (CQC) has found. The regulator warned that some of the “inappropriate” do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) notices applied in the spring may still be in place and called on all care providers to check with the person concerned that they consent. The review was prompted by concerns about the blanket application of the orders in care homes in the early part of the pandemic, amid then prevalent fears that NHS hospitals would be overwhelmed. The CQC received 40 submissions from the public, mostly about DNACPR orders that had been put in place without consulting with the person or their family. These included reports of all the residents of one care home being given a DNACPR notice, and of the notices routinely being applied to anyone infected with Covid. Some people reported that they did not even know a DNACPR order had been placed on their relative until they were quite unwell. “There is evidence of unacceptable and inappropriate DNACPRs being made at the start of the pandemic,” the interim report found, adding that the practice may have caused “potentially avoidable death”. Read full story Source: The Guardian, 3 December 2020
  8. Content Article
    Take home messages and a call for action Over the course of two days debate many issues were raised and important messages sent out. These included the following: WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufactures (a non-State Actor in Official Relationship with WHO) reassured patients that all WHO Member States and all of the pharmaceutical industry are cooperating and sharing knowledge and resources as never before. Strengthening health systems, especially primary health is a priority to lead the effort to vaccinate 8 billion people over a short time span. Patient engagement is vitally important here to address both the infodemic and vaccine hesitation, and help ensure vulnerable patients are vaccinated quickly When effective vaccines come on stream regulators such as the FDA and EMA must maintain their strong stance on patient engagement and co-creation of guidelines and the African Medicines Agency should adopt the same approach The World Health Organization’s Global Action on Patients Safety and the WHO Flagship Decade of Patient safety 20200-30 be integrated into all covid-19 control systems and the full spectrum of healthcare Patient engagement and co creation in health systems must be formalised by legal and policy means.
  9. Event
    The Deteriorating Patient Summit focuses on recognising and responding to the deteriorating patient through improving the reliability of patient observations and ensuring quality of care. The conference will include National Developments including the recent recommendations from the Royal College of Physicians on NEWS2 and COVID-19, and implementing the recommendations from the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch Report Investigation into recognising and responding to critically unwell patients. The conference will include practical case study based sessions on identifying patients at risk of deterioration, improving practice in patient observations, responding to the deteriorating patient, improving escalation and understanding success factors in escalation, sepsis and COVID-19, involving patients and families in recognising deterioration, and improving the communication and use of NEWS2 in the community, including care homes, and at the interface of care. Follow the conference on Twitter #deterioratingpatient Register
  10. Content Article
    Definition The authors of this paper have developed a definition, including both a short-form and a long-form definition. Here is the short-form and the long-form can be found in the full paper: Patient and family* engagement in the ICU is an active partnership between health professionals and patients and families working at every level of the healthcare system to improve health and the quality, safety, and delivery of healthcare. Arenas for such engagement include but are not limited to participation in direct care, communication of patient values and goals, and transformation of care processes to promote and protect individual respect and dignity. PFE comprises five core concepts: Collaboration, Respect and Dignity, Activation and Participation, Information Sharing, and Decision Making. Brief summaries of the core concepts are presented in Table 1 and depicted visually in Figure 1. *Family is broadly defined to include all the individuals whom the patient wants involved in his/her care, regardless of whether they are related biologically, legally, or otherwise; if the patient is noncommunicative, health professionals will make their best effort to identify and include the individuals whom the patient would want involved in his/her care.
  11. Event
    Facilitate effective communication and manage quality efforts across your organisation with a platform that promotes staff engagement and encourages proactive risk mitigation. Learn how Safety Huddles can help your organisation prevent potential harm from happening in the first place. Empower staff to share ideas for improvement and speak up about patient safety concerns. Configure your huddle format to collect the information that matters most. Capture customised quick notes, reference pertinent files or patients and create targeted tasks. Measure huddle performance and effectiveness with robust dashboards and reports. Register
  12. Event
    The Patient Information Forum's sell-out writing training course has been redeveloped for online delivery, maintaining the element of classroom style teaching with direct interaction with tutors and group work with practical exercises. The course features practical exercises, group work and feedback from tutors. The course is ideal for anyone starting out in health information and for those wishing to improve and refresh their skills. It is also ideal for staff planning to return from furlough who may have lost confidence while away from work. The course will be delivered via Zoom and will be held over three consecutive mornings with a maximum of 30 delegates. Register
  13. Content Article
    According to the responses we received, the four themes that became most obvious - the four things you think staff most need to be safe - are: Compassionate leaders and role models who prioritise their staff’s wellbeing A respectful, supportive team with good communication and united by a common purpose A safe and just culture that invites staff to speak up Psychological safety, protecting staff form burnout
  14. Content Article
    Video 1: Gill explains her background and how she came to develop Whose Shoes Video 2: Gill explains how Whose Shoes was inspired by hearing about the person-centred approach to healthcare Video 3: Gill discusses the different groups that have been involved in Whose Shoes workshops and what impact it's had on them Video 4: Gill talks about future plans for Whose Shoes, as well as her virtual Whose Shoes workshops
  15. Event
    UCL has been working on developing their Centre for co-production as a mixed group of members of the public, researchers, patients, carers, healthcare practitioners, charities, local authorities and students (really anyone who wants to get involved or is interested in co-production!), since back in October 2017. After almost exactly 3 years they are officially launching it This event will be a celebration of all things co-production, highlighting the importance of this approach to research, policy-making and service development/improvement. It will include short snippets from UCL's ’Share your Co-pro Story’ campaign, the unveiling of their new strategy and new name, logo, and identity, and a chance to meet other likeminded people and have a chat... Find out more and register