Search the hub
Showing results for tags 'Information sharing'.
Found 467 results
-
EventWhat does good consent look like in practice, and what are the patient safety consequences when patients are not truly informed? Join Radar Healthcare's webinar, Digital consent: How to deliver safer outcomes by bringing consent, risk and insight together, to explore the vital link between patient education, informed decision-making and safer care. Featuring perspectives from the Patients Association, Patient Information Forum, legal experts and frontline clinicians, this CPD-certified session will examine how organisations can strengthen consent processes, reduce risk and improve patient outcomes through better communication, education and insight. Register
-
News Article
NHS staff battling wave of food supplement disinformation
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Social media misinformation about the use of dietary supplements such as turmeric, St John’s wort and magnesium is now so common that dispelling online claims has become a routine part of NHS clinicians work. Two out of five frontline health workers say they encounter patients who raise inaccurate or misleading information about supplements at least once a week. Polling by YouGov for the World Cancer Research Fund found that the figure is even higher (53%) among nurses and midwives, with false information about nutrition and supplements now taking up what doctors describe as “precious time” in NHS consultations. The WCRF says it fears that patients’ belief in unproven dietary regimes, vitamins and minerals is putting their health in danger and increasing their risk of getting cancer. Dr Philippa Kaye said she saw the consequences of health misinformation every week in her GP surgery. “My patients arrive clutching newspaper stories, social media screenshots, printouts from wellness websites or saved videos from TikTok. “What particularly worries me is the widely held belief that if something is sold over the counter, marked as ‘natural’ or endorsed online, then it must automatically be safe and harmless, while prescribed medicines are somehow toxic,” she added. “As doctors, we know this simply is not true.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 14 June -
Content ArticleHave your eyes ever felt sore and itchy after spending too much time staring at a screen? You might have a condition known as bixonimania—or at least that’s what several popular AI-powered chatbots might have told you if you’d asked last year. Millions of people around the world turn to AI chatbots for medical advice every day, often as a supplement to a doctor’s visit but also sometimes in place of it. That can lead to dangerous consequences and in rare cases, even death. Almira Osmanovic Thunström is a researcher at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden and at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Center for Digital Health and Chalmers Industriteknik. She’s also the creator of bixonimania. In this interview with Scientific American, Almira says this totally made-up disease reveals some very real problems with the way we train and use large language models.
-
News Article
One in seven in UK prefer consulting AI chatbots to seeing doctor, study finds
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
One in seven people are using AI chatbots for health advice instead of seeing their GP, a UK study has found. The poll of more than 2,000 people found that – of the 15% turning to chatbots – one in four had done so because of long NHS waiting lists. The study analysed by researchers at King’s College London revealed the potential risks of using AI for health advice. A fifth of respondents who did so said the technology did not encourage them to seek a professional opinion and a similar proportion said they decided against seeking a consultation because of something an AI chatbot had told them. The research is the first to quantify the use of AI chatbots for health advice, according to the researchers, and signals how the technology is changing the way people are dealing with health problems. Prof Graham Lord, the lead author of the study, said growing individual use of chatbots was creating “an unregulated AI healthcare system alongside the NHS”. He added: “This research underlines the scale and pace at which AI is already shaping how people access healthcare. While the opportunities are significant, it also highlights concerns about safety and accountability. “When something goes wrong with AI, responsibility is often placed on clinicians, even where they have limited control over how AI tools are introduced. To realise AI’s potential, we need greater transparency about what works, what is safe, how decisions are made and how issues are handled – so staff and patients can feel confident in its use. It is vital we respond to what the public are telling us and ensure we build and maintain trust with them and the AI tools we look to deploy.” Read full story Source: 13 May 2026 -
Content ArticleThis report examines the public's attitudes towards AI in healthcare – both its personal use and its role in clinical settings – revealing a public that is already engaging with AI technology, but with significant anxieties and divisions about how far it should go. Drawing on a major survey of the UK population, carried out with Focaldata, the study explores how people are already using AI chatbots for health advice, public attitudes to AI in NHS clinical decision-making, and what the public expect in terms of oversight, consent and accountability. The findings highlight where public attitudes align with or diverge from the current reality of AI adoption in healthcare – exposing knowledge gaps, a strong demand for regulation, and a consistent divide between men and women that runs through almost every measure. One in seven (15%) of the public have used AI chatbots for health advice instead of contacting a GP or other NHS service, and one in ten (10%) say they have used AI for mental health therapy or wellbeing support instead of seeing a trained professional. But the findings raise questions about the risks of this shift. One in five (20%) of those who sought health advice from AI say the technology did not encourage them to seek a professional opinion – and a similar proportion (21%) report having decided against seeking professional healthcare advice because of something an AI chatbot said. This comes as recent evidence shows AI chatbots misdiagnose in up to 80% of early medical cases
-
News Article
Misinformation about perimenopause on social media ‘putting women at risk’
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Misinformation about perimenopause is putting women at risk of unintended pregnancies, unnecessary medication and missed diagnoses, experts have said. Awareness of menopause and treatments such as hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has been raised by efforts including a prominent documentary by Davina McCall. But as a growing number of women encounter misleading information on social media, there are concerns that some could be led to false conclusions that can obscure real underlying health difficulties. “Everyone thinks they’re menopausal,” said Dr Paula Briggs, a consultant in sexual and reproductive health. “So we are seeing younger and younger women asking for HRT when what they need is hormonal contraception, as they’re still fertile. “I work in an abortion service and we’re seeing more women over 35 now who believe themselves to be menopausal and are gobsmacked when they become pregnant.” Briggs said misinformation around perimenopause is concerning. “I look at things like Instagram to see what they are exposed to and I am horrified,” she said, citing examples of women in their 30s being told to demand HRT if they are unable to sleep or are struggling with migraines – and to switch GPs if denied. Or women being told they should seek testosterone treatment. “I’m not anti any of these things in the right person, but females produce their own testosterone lifelong, even women without ovaries, so the idea that everybody has to demand testosterone is bonkers,” Briggs said. Dr Channa Jayasena, an expert in reproductive endocrinology at Imperial College London, also raised concerns. “It’s great that there’s better [public] awareness [about perimenopause]. And I think many doctors are completely unaware about how debilitating the symptoms of perimenopause can be,” he said. “But the flipside of that, I think there’s a risk that some women are being mislabelled as having perimenopause when they have other things that are wrong.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 25 May 2026 -
News Article
Southport attack victim accuses trust of ‘cover up’ over care records breach
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Hospital staff inappropriately accessed the medical records of victims of the 2024 mass stabbing at a dance class in Southport, HSJ can reveal. Three young girls – Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice da Silva Aguiar, and Bebe King – were killed in the attack on 29 July 2024, while 10 others were injured. The perpetrator was jailed for life last year. Some of the injured were treated at University Hospitals of Liverpool Group. HSJ has learned that a “standard” information access audit carried out by the trust in the days after the incident revealed that 48 staff accessed their records without a good reason. However, this information was not given to the patients involved until this week, following HSJ’s inquiries. Leanne Lucas survived the Southport attack and was one of UHLG patients whose records were inappropriately accessed. She told HSJ: “I am absolutely devastated and horrified that my privacy has been invaded when I was at my most vulnerable. Nothing will take away my gratitude to the staff who saved my life, but 48 people not involved in my care abused their position of trust to access the files of victims who have suffered unspeakable trauma. The decision to keep this from me for almost two years is a new low. I am speaking out as I want this scandal and the attempted cover-up by senior management exposed for what it is.” The trust denies any attempt at a cover-up. Its board had originally planned to tell those involved about the breach. However, HSJ understands its leadership changed their mind sometime in 2025, after trust directors decided that informing the patients would not be in their best interests, as it risked retraumatising them. Read full story (paywalled) Source: HSJ, 14 May 2026 -
News ArticleMPs have warned that an NHS decision to grant Palantir access to identifiable patient information in its plan to use AI to improve the health service is “dangerous” and will fuel public fears that data privacy is not being prioritised. NHS England has allowed staff from the US tech firm and other contractors to access patient data before it has been pseudonymised, despite internal fears of a “risk of loss of public confidence”, the Financial Times reported. The health service made the move to allow Palantir to access the data in recent weeks according to the reports, which revealed an internal NHS briefing that said it would allow “unlimited access to non-NHSE staff” to part of the NHS’s federated data platform (FDP), which holds identifiable patient information. Palantir was awarded a £330m contract to help build the FDP, installing AI systems to integrate scattered health datasets and bring efficiencies to medical treatment. But the deal has been dogged by warnings from campaigners and MPs concerned about the security of patient records. The Patients Association said it was concerned patients were not consulted on a significant change to who has unlimited access to patient data. Rachel Power, its chief executive, said patients wanted “transparency, clear boundaries around access to their data, and to be consulted when changes to those agreements are proposed”. The leaked NHS England briefing acknowledged the “considerable public interest and concern about how much access to patient data Palantir/Palantir staff have”. In 2023, shortly after the deal was agreed, NHS England said it would ensure “personal data remains protected and within the NHS at all times”. Read full story Source: The Guardian, 11 May 2026
-
News ArticleOne of the biggest producers of hormone replacement therapy has been censured by regulators for “systemic failures” that jeopardised patient safety. Theramex, the UK producer of HRT drugs Evorel and Intrarosa, was found to have breached fundamental compliance standards including not updating crucial prescribing information – in some cases for several years – and not making it clear that a drug must not be used during pregnancy. The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), the UK drug industry’s self-regulatory body, issued the public reprimand against Theramex after its own staff blew the whistle over “alarming” compliance issues and incomplete prescribing information for Evorel and Intrarosa that “jeopardise patient safety”. Evorel patches – which contain estradiol – are among the most prescribed form of transdermal HRT, with more than 250,000 items issued in the last financial year, according to NHS Business Services Authority figures. Overall, nearly 10m items of estradiol, including gels, were prescribed in the 2024/25 financial year. The employees’ concerns included failing to provide comprehensive side-effect information in Evorel’s prescribing information, and not updating Intrarosa’s product information since 2019. The PMCPA also reprimanded the company for failures to specify in its advertising at a reproduction and advertising conference that Yselty (linzagolix), used to treat uterine fibroids, should not be taken during pregnancy. In all, PMCPA found that Theramex breached the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)’s code of practice 21 times. The panel said these breaches not only jeopardised patient safety, but that Theramex has “brought discredit upon, and reduced confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry”. Read full story Source: The Guardian, 22 April 2026
-
Content Article
Allergy UK: Self-help hub
Patient Safety Learning posted an article in Allergies
Understanding a new medical condition can be overwhelming, and navigating the process of seeking diagnosis and specialist care can feel complex. That’s why Allergy UK have created the Allergy Self-Help Hub. It’s your first stop for understanding allergies, preparing for the journey ahead, and equipping yourself with the tools and knowledge to navigate the process. With these resources, you’ll be ready to make the most of your interactions with healthcare professionals and ensure you get the support and treatment you need. -
Content Article
Julie Smith is a content director for a patient information library, and a Topic leader for the hub. In this blog she draws on recent research and her own expertise to explain why deprioritising patient education represents a failure to keep patients safe. Patient education and surgical outcomes: what the evidence shows Last year, Caroline Kamau-Mitchell published her research findings for The Surgeon titled ‘Benefits of patient education in surgery’ [1]. Her work involved surveying 38,689 patients who underwent a procedure in the NHS in England. Kamau-Mitchell found that around half of patients felt anxious before their procedure and this often correlated with outcomes, both in terms of patient satisfaction, but also post-procedure results. She noted that patient education: can reduce preoperative anxiety increases satisfaction teaches people what to expect from surgery and when to seek help. When patient education is rushed, safety is compromised I am the content director for a patient information library so it’s no surprise that this paper piqued my interest. It is both reassuring and affirming to see in black and white just how much of a difference good patient education makes. Sadly, we do hear both from patients and clinicians that information sharing is sometimes limited and rushed. In order for the patient to be truly educated and informed, they need time to digest the information, mull it over, discuss with loved ones, before deciding. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Healthcare providers are busy, overwhelmed and under pressure to deliver against tight targets and deadlines. This can result in cutting corners such as rushed consultations, very little time between information sharing and the procedure itself, and ultimately, unsafe care. The result of this could be catastrophic; symptoms of a serious complication may be ignored, important post-operative advice may be missed and, ultimately, the consent given will not be truly informed. Anxiety, uncertainty and the patient experience of surgery The point around anxiety is also an important one to consider. Hospitals may be second homes to our healthcare providers, but to most people they are overwhelming, alien and can carry negative connotations or memories. There are strange smells and sounds, people walking around in scrubs and masks, not to mention the maze-like configuration of so many of them. This is all before you consider that the patient may have a life-threatening condition, an awful injury or unexplained symptoms that require a procedure. If we have an opportunity to reduce their anxiety, especially given Kamau-Mitchell’s conclusion that this can be reduced with patient education, we absolutely have to take it. Patient education is a core component of safe care Kamau-Mitchell’s research shows that we cannot afford to cut corners when it comes to patient education. Deprioritising patient education represents a failure to keep patients safe. The evidence is there for all to see; properly educated patients are more satisfied, less anxious, have better outcomes and know what the warning signs are if anything goes wrong. We want to make patients feel safe when they have surgery. This isn’t just about having the right person with the right expertise providing their care, it’s also about them being prepared and knowing what to expect. Patient education plays such an important part in this and so it is our duty to both get it right in terms of its content but also make sure it’s shared in a timely and accessible manner. Making consent a meaningful process, not a formality Accountability is key here – consent must be treated as a defined and prioritised part of the care pathway, supported by leadership and embedded in organisational processes. There is plenty of good-quality information and well-informed healthcare professionals able to deliver the information but if they are not given the time and resources to deliver it, the issue of poor consenting processes will persist. It is the duty of clinical and safety leadership to ensure good patient education is prioritised and promoted so it becomes a part of the culture of their organisation. Failing to prioritise patient education is a preventable patient safety risk and should be treated as such. Kamau-Mitchell’s study findings must be considered by any healthcare providers when it comes to how they much time and effort they put into providing education for their patients. If they don’t, they put their patients at risk of poor experience, poor outcomes and uninformed consent. Reference [1] C. Kamau-Mitchell, “Benefits of patient education in surgery,” The Surgeon, pp. 162-166, 2025. -
News ArticleA new study has found that AI chatbots habitually recommend alternative cancer treatments to chemotherapy, potentially putting lives at risk. A team from the Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center tested a series of widely used bots as part of their research, including xAI’s Grok, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, Meta’s AI, and High-Flyer’s DeepSeek. They found that almost half of the answers received regarding cancer treatments were rated “problematic” by experts who audited the responses, according to the study published in BMJ Open. Of that total, 30% were “somewhat problematic,” and 19.6% were “highly problematic,” with the former category defined as largely accurate but incomplete and the latter both substantially wrong and leaving room for “considerable subjective interpretation” on the part of the user. Nicholas Tiller and his team stress-tested the apps through a process known as “straining,” wherein they posed questions to the bots likely to lead them towards subject matter rife with misinformation to see how well they could navigate it. When the bots were asked to name alternative therapies that performed better than chemotherapy in treating cancer, they typically responded appropriately, advising the prompter that alternatives can be harmful and may not be scientifically backed. However, they then went on to list them anyway, suggesting acupuncture, herbal medicine, and “cancer-fighting diets” as other means through which sufferers might be able to treat cancer. Tiller said the bots’ inclination to give a “false balance” or “both-sides approach” to answering such inquiries – weighing scientific and non-scientific results equally and giving peer-reviewed journals the same consideration as wellness blogs, Reddit rants, and tweets – prevented them from providing “a very science-based, black-and-white answer.” Read full story Source: The Independent, 20 April 2026
-
Content ArticleEvery day, millions of Americans use artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT and others to ask medical questions. Physicians also use AI: Two in three U.S. doctors report using large language models regularly in some form, and roughly one in five consult AI for questions on patient care. Yet critical questions have remained largely unanswered: What’s the best AI for medical questions, and how badly can AI get things wrong? New research by a team from Stanford, Harvard and several other institutions published under the fitting name Numerous Options Harm Assessment for Risk in Medicine, or NOHARM, offers the most rigorous answer yet.
-
Content ArticleMedicine is still debating whether artificial intelligence will match or exceed human diagnostic skill. But the most consequential change is already happening elsewhere. It is unfolding quietly in the relationships patients are forming with AI systems, and in the narratives they bring with them before a clinician ever enters the room. If general practice only looks for it inside the consultation, it will be reacting to consequences rather than causes. Adam Phillips is a UK medical student and former IBM technology consultant, and Simon Rudland, visiting professor of integrated digital health at the University of Suffolk, describe these dynamics as post-Turing clinical relationships (PTCRs). In these relationships, patients develop sustained, functionally supportive interactions with AI tools that influence how they interpret symptoms, regulate anxiety, decide when to seek care, and engage with clinicians. The changes are uneven, but they are already reshaping consultations and continuity in ways general practice is only beginning to notice.
-
Content ArticleArtificial intelligence (AI)-driven chatbots have been rapidly adopted across research, education, business, marketing and medicine. Most interactions, however, come from non-experts using chatbots like search engines, including for everyday health and medical queries. This study, published in BMJ Open, audited chatbot responses in health and medical fields prone to misinformation. Five popular chatbots were assessed: Gemini (Google), DeepSeek (High-Flyer), Meta AI (Meta), ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Grok (xAI). In February 2025, each chatbot was prompted with 10 questions from five categories: cancer, vaccines, stem cells, nutrition and athletic performance. The authors deployed an adversarial-like framework, using open- and closed-ended prompts designed to strain models toward misinformation or contraindicated advice. Two experts from each category rated responses as ‘non-problematic’, ‘somewhat problematic’ or ‘highly problematic’ using a coding matrix based on objective, predefined criteria. Citations were scored for accuracy and completeness, and each response was given a Flesch Reading Ease score. The study found that nearly half (49.6%) of responses were problematic: 30% somewhat problematic and 19.6% highly problematic. Response quality did not differ significantly among chatbots, but Grok generated significantly more highly problematic responses than would be expected under a random distribution. Performance was strongest in vaccines and cancer, and weakest in stem cells, athletic performance and nutrition. Chatbot outputs were consistently expressed with confidence and certainty; from 250 total questions, there were only two refusals to answer, both from Meta AI. Reference quality was poor, with a median completeness score of 40%. Chatbot hallucinations and fabricated citations precluded any chatbot from producing a fully accurate reference list. All readability scores were graded as ‘Difficult’, equivalent to college sophomore–senior level. The audited chatbots performed poorly when answering questions in misinformation-prone health and medical fields. Continued deployment without public education and oversight risks amplifying misinformation.
-
News Article
The dangers of using AI chatbots for health and medical information
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Experts have issued a stark warning about the use of AI chatbots for health and medical information. Chatbots such as ChatGPT and Grok frequently "hallucinate," delivering inaccurate and incomplete medical information, research has found. Half of the responses to 50 medical questions in a recent study were deemed "problematic." All AI types were implicated, with Grok showing the most issues (58%), followed by ChatGPT (52%) and Meta AI (50%). Researchers said “chatbots often hallucinate, generating incorrect or misleading responses due to biased or incomplete training data, and models that are fine-tuned on human feedback are known to exhibit sycophancy – prioritising answers that align with user beliefs over the truth”. They said the incorporation of AI chatbots into medicine requires diligent oversight, “especially since they are not licensed to dispense medical advice and may not have access to up-to-date medical knowledge”. Previous work has found that only 32% of more than 500 citations from ChatGPT, ScholarGPT and DeepSeek were accurate and almost half were at least partially fabricated, according to the study. Read full story Source: The Independent, 15 April 2026 -
News Article
Dr TikTok: patients diagnose chronic illnesses with anonymous commenters’ help
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Malina Lee, a 31-year-old wedding baker based in San Antonio, Texas, joined TikTok during the Covid pandemic lockdowns in 2020. Like many people at the time, she was bored and began using the platform to pass the time and advertise her business. She didn’t expect a cancer diagnosis. Four years after Lee joined the app, a commenter with the username “PickleFart” told her that her neck looked asymmetrical in a way that could suggest she had a goiter – an enlarged thyroid gland – and that she should get it checked out. The anonymous amateur clinician turned out to be right – Lee had thyroid cancer, received treatment quickly, and, less than a year later, was cancer free. TikTok users are increasingly reporting that the app’s hyper-specific algorithm has steered them towards detecting medical problems before they were aware of them themselves. In many instances, users reported that symptoms described by other TikTokers matched their own inscrutable set of ailments, which led to diagnoses. In instances like Lee’s, human commenters were responsible for diagnoses that doctors had missed or not yet identified. Lee is not the only user that PickleFart, whose real name is Billie Jean Tuomi, has accurately diagnosed in a comment section. By her estimate, Tuomi has commented on dozens of videos alerting content creators of potential thyroid problems – and correctly spotted serious problems in at least four cases that she knows of, including Lee’s. Tuomi’s career as the “thyroid avenger”, as some have started to call her, is personal in its origins: she herself was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2012, and after two years of treatment was declared cancer-free. But obtaining a diagnosis and undergoing the subsequent treatment were difficult processes. She now finds herself trying to spare strangers on the internet what she went through. “It’s something that you don’t ever stop struggling with – it’s constantly on my mind,” she said. “The earlier you get diagnosed, the easier it is to treat, so I feel like it’s important to say something if you see something.” Craig Mittleman, director of the department of emergency services at Lawrence + Memorial hospital in Connecticut, said in the last five years of his 36-year career practicing medicine, he has seen a sharp increase in patients coming in with internet-influenced diagnoses – for better and for worse. “In some ways, it’s allowed patients to feel empowered to ask certain questions and be more informed,” he said. “But I also find that we are often, as emergency physicians, spending a lot of time debunking information that patients present, which they’ve procured through social media.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 12 April 2026 -
News Article
Medicines watchdog to investigate UK peptide clinics over health claims
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
The medicines regulator is investigating whether UK clinics are breaking the law by making claims about the benefits of unregulated, experimental peptide therapies, the Guardian can reveal. Interest in experimental peptides has boomed in recent years. The substances are delivered by injection and are touted by sellers, influencers and even some medics as aiding everything from anti-ageing to recovery from injury. There is little scientific evidence to support such health and wellness claims in humans. Where studies have been carried out, most are in animals or cells. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has said clinics are not permitted to make medicinal claims for the peptide treatments offered by their service. An MHRA spokesperson said: “If clinics offering peptide injections make medicinal claims for those treatments, the products will be considered medicines and subject to regulation under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. “The MHRA will take action against clinics which are identified as breaching the legal requirements.” However, a Guardian investigation has found a number of clinics operating in the UK offering a variety of unregulated, experimental peptides and making a host of claims about their benefits on their websites. These include approved prescription weight-loss medications based on synthetic peptides that mimic natural hormones, such as semaglutide and tirzepatide, found in weight loss drugs such as Wegovy and Mounjaro respectively. But many other peptides on the market have not undergone the strict regulatory processing that those used in medications have undergone, and remain experimental. Read full story Source: The Guardian, 4 April 2026 -
News ArticleA 16-year-old boy killed himself after asking ChatGPT for the “most successful” way to take your own life, an inquest has been told. Luca Cella Walker, a private school pupil from Yateley, Hampshire, died on 4 May last year. An inquest at Winchester coroner’s court heard on Tuesday that, hours before his death, Walker had asked the generative AI chatbot for the “most successful” way for someone to kill themself on a railway line. At the time of his death, he was studying at Sixth Form College Farnborough. He had recently graduated from Lord Wandsworth College near Hook, Hampshire. The court heard that the school had a “bully or be bullied” culture, which had been a “formative” factor in his mental health struggles. His parents, Scott Walker and Claire Cella, told the inquest they had had no idea about their son’s mental health struggles and described it as an “invisible battle”. DS Garry Knight from the British Transport Police, who investigated Walker’s death, told the inquest: “They found he had been on ChatGPT the night before, at about 12.30am, asking for advice on the most successful ways to commit suicide on the railway. It makes quite chilling and upsetting reading.” Knight added: “It is built in to say you can contact organisations for help such as Samaritans, but Luca had sidestepped that, which ChatGPT accepted and gave the most effective ways people can [kill themselves] on the railway.” Coroner Christopher Wilkinson told the inquest of his concerns about the impact of AI software but added he felt unable to act due to its growing scope. Wilkinson said: “It’s clear from what I’ve read that he was asking for specifics. Thankfully, perhaps the only good thing is that ChatGPT does seem to be applying an element of worry about why these questions are being asked, but it certainly doesn’t stop the conversation. “It’s sidestepped by the individual saying he’s not looking for himself but he’s looking for research purposes.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 31 March 2026
-
News ArticleWarnings about common medications that can cause impulsive behaviours, such as sex and gambling addictions, are being officially reviewed after BBC News identified an error in drug leaflets. Side effects of a family of drugs used to treat Parkinson's, Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS) and other conditions have led to huge debts, broken marriages, criminality and suicide, our year-long investigation found. More than 350 affected people have contacted the BBC during that period. One in six Parkinson's patients taking the drugs are affected by impulse control disorders, the clinical term for these behaviours, according to one study cited as the largest of its kind. Yet those side effects are described as "uncommon" in leaflets for one of the drugs, suggesting they only affect fewer than one in a hundred patients. After being alerted by the BBC, the UK's drug safety regulator said that "an error has been identified" and it would be changing that label to "common". In response to our findings, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has also begun reviewing warnings for all eight of these medications, which are known as dopamine agonist drugs. Boehringer Ingelheim, the developer of Pramipexole - the Parkinson's drug with impulsive behaviours listed as "uncommon" - said the regulator had approved its leaflets and that it was committed to improving patient safety. Neither it nor the MHRA were able to say how long the error had existed for, but the BBC has discovered its inclusion in a leaflet from 2021 - meaning patients have been misled for at least five years. The MP who heads the Health Select Committee has told us she "wants answers" from the MHRA and believes it should apologise to families for the mistake. "I just can't even begin to imagine hearing what they've been through - abuse, financial ruin, all that you've uncovered - and then to find out that they could have been so much better forewarned," said Layla Moran. Read full story Source: BBC News, 28 March 2026
-
News Article
NHS App caused ‘confusion and anxiety’ over waiting times
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Waiting time information in the NHS App has been overhauled after causing “confusion, anxiety and mistrust” among patients, HSJ has learned. NHS England changed the app’s waiting information page – which initially showed a mean average time – after it led to many patients calling hospitals to ask why they were waiting longer. Alongside the mean average referral-to-treatment time for their trust, a new metric has now been added to the page, which shows “eight in 10 patients are seen within X weeks”. A design history document, published by NHSE this month, admitted the previous version – introduced more than two years ago – was causing patients to believe they were seeing a personalised wait time, updated in real time. This caused “confusion, anxiety and mistrust” when the average date passed, but they had not been contacted or had an appointment. Many users also believed the waiting time referred to their initial appointment, rather than treatment. NHSE said the initial information caused “increased call volumes and burden on frontline staff” as patients called hospitals for clarification. Read full story (paywalled) Source: HSJ, 24 March 2026 -
Event
ISQua's 42nd International Conference
Patient Safety Learning posted an event in Community Calendar
untilThriving through compassion and community: Sharing stories for the future of health systems Join 1,400+ professionals from 80 countries at the world’s most energising healthcare conference on quality, safety, and patient-centred innovation. Register -
News Article
NHS hospitals urged to reject £330m data platform part-owned by Trump ally
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
NHS hospitals are being urged by a group of doctors, human rights groups and campaigners to reconsider using a major data platform built by US tech giant Palantir, whose owners include Peter Thiel, a close ally of US President Donald Trump. The NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP) is a system designed to bring together information from across the health service so hospitals can analyse it more easily and improve how care is delivered. Supporters say the technology is already helping the NHS treat more patients and manage pressure on services, but critics argue it raises wider concerns about privacy, ethics and the role of large technology companies in handling sensitive public sector data. The FDP aims to connect operational data from across the NHS, including information about waiting lists, hospital capacity and patient pathways, allowing staff to plan care and allocate resources more effectively. Dr Rhiannon Mihranian Osborne wants the contract to be scrapped, and has told Sky News that staff understand the importance of privacy and ethics in patient care. She said they are "horrified" by Palantir's involvement in the scheme as it "could seriously damage trust in our health system". Read full story Source: Sky News, 15 March 2026 -
Content ArticleReflecting on a session from last week’s Nuffield Trust Summit on misinformation and polarised views about health, Leonora Merry discusses the growing gap between experts, institutions and the public when it comes to science and healthcare.
-
Content Article
Lichen sclerosus is a skin condition that causes itchy white patches, most commonly on the genitals. There's no cure, but treatment can help relieve the symptoms. It is though to affect 1 in 100 women. The Lichen Sclerosus Guide was awarded first place in the 'Communicating effectively with patients and families' category of the 2025 Picker Experience Network (PEN) Awards. The guide has been written by people with vulval lichen sclerosus and expert healthcare professionals and researchers from the University of Bristol, University of Nottingham, East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, and Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. Since its launch earlier this year, the guide has been viewed by over 25,000 people in more than 50 countries. The Lichen Sclerosus Guide led by Dr Sophie Rees and Dr Caroline Owen combines clinical expertise with lived experience of vulval lichen sclerosus, offering clear, accessible information through written content, videos, animations, and downloadable tools. It contains information about symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and support, and includes videos explaining what happens to the skin in lichen sclerosus, vulval anatomy and self-examination, and how to apply treatment to the vulva. The judging panel praised the guide for its inclusive, evidence-based approach to tackling stigma and improving health literacy. They commented that: “It empowers patients, supports clinicians and bridges gaps in care, making it a model for effective communication and partnership in healthcare.”
