Search the hub

When the Covid-19 pandemic arrived in the UK in March 2020, Professor Paul Elkington and a team at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS) quickly developed a new form of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) called PeRSo (Personal Respirator Southampton) for hospital staff to use. PeRSo is a portable, wearable device which blows air through a HEPA filter into a hood, providing a high level of protection against respiratory infection. In this interview, Paul describes how, working with industry partners, his team was able to provide 3,500 members of staff at UHS with PeRSo during the pandemic. Describing the impact this had on staff morale and Covid infection rates, he explains why PeRSo is a preferable alternative to the FFP3 masks recommended by the Government during the pandemic. Paul outlines how, in the event of another pandemic, providing personal respirators would offer effective protection for healthcare workers and the wider population at relatively low cost. He also outlines what the Government needs to do to ensure the UK is prepared for future pandemics, including making changes to the regulatory framework and incentivising the development of personal respirators designed specifically for infection control. Further reading on the hub: A personal respirator to improve protection for healthcare workers treating Covid-19 (PeRSo) Powered respirators are effective, sustainable and cost-effective Personal Protective Equipment for SARS-CoV-2 Respiratory protective equipment: An unequal solution for healthcare workers? A blog by David Osborn "Forgotten heroes" – the sequel: a blog and resources from David Osborn

Leadership Futures recently published a report 'Harnessing technology for human progress: Advancing into Industry 5.0', which is driven by a bold ambition: to transform organisations worldwide through technological advancements. In this blog, Caroline Beardall looks at the implications of this for healthcare and suggests five actions that organisation's should take to ensure we achieve the benefits from technology while keeping patient safety at the forefront of an evolving landscape. The recent Leadership Futures report 'Harnessing technology for human progress: Advancing into Industry 5.0' provides a valuable framework for integrating technology with human-centered leadership, which is highly applicable to advancing patient safety in health and care. Its vision of Industry 5.0 as a collaborative human-AI partnership offers a route to reduce errors, enhance clinician capacity and improve patient outcomes. However, realising these benefits requires caution—ethical and inclusive implementation strategies that address the complexities and risks unique to health and care settings. It throws up three fundamental challenges: How can healthcare leaders ensure AI tools are safe to use and that clinical staff can trust them? Who should be responsible if an AI system makes a mistake that affects a patient? How can healthcare organisations use technology to work better without losing the importance of human interaction and the skills needed for high levels of patient satisfaction and safety? In order to answer these questions, and deepen the discussion on harnessing technology responsibly to safeguard and improve patient care, there are some actions we can take to build on the report and begin to gain evidence and experience specific to healthcare. As the landscape of healthcare shifts and evolves, we should consider applying the following five actions (with examples of how to do this) so we can achieve the maximum benefits from technology for patient safety. 1. Foster collective, collaborative leadership across boundaries Leaders should actively promote cooperation and shared responsibility across organisational and professional boundaries, focusing on the overall patient journey rather than siloed departmental goals. This aligns with the report’s emphasis on human-machine collaboration and the need for integrative leadership cultures that support safe, seamless care delivery. By working collectively, leaders can ensure technology is implemented with broad input and oversight, reducing risks and enhancing patient safety. Implement interdisciplinary collaboration practices: Organise regular team meetings involving diverse healthcare professionals to discuss patient care holistically, ensuring all voices contribute to decision making. Create shared goals and aligned metrics: Develop common objectives focused on patient safety and quality that unify departments and reduce siloed working. Lead by example: Demonstrate collaborative behaviours and openness to input, encouraging a culture of trust and teamwork. 2. Embed ethical, human-centred use of technology Leaders must champion ethical principles in technology adoption, ensuring AI and digital tools augment rather than replace human judgment and empathy. This includes rigorous validation of new technologies, transparency in AI decision-making, and ongoing monitoring to prevent harm or bias. Prioritising patient experience and human values in technology deployment safeguards safety and trust. Prioritise transparency and clinician involvement: Engage frontline staff early in AI and technology design and deployment to ensure tools meet clinical needs and ethical standards. Establish continuous monitoring and feedback loops: Use data and user feedback to identify and mitigate risks or biases in technology that could impact patient safety. Promote ethical leadership training: Equip leaders with skills to balance innovation with patient experience and accountability. 3. Develop and support workforce readiness and engagement Preparing staff to work effectively alongside new technologies is vital. Leaders should invest in training that builds digital literacy, critical thinking and resilience, while also fostering a positive work climate where staff feel valued and supported. Engaged and confident clinicians are better able to use technology safely and maintain high standards of care. Invest in targeted training and digital upskilling: Provide contextual, in-app guidance and interactive training to help staff adopt new technologies confidently and efficiently. Foster a culture of psychological safety and empowerment: Encourage open discussion, honest feedback and staff involvement in decision making to build trust and resilience. Practice empathetic leadership: Focus on emotional and professional needs of staff to reduce burnout and improve engagement. 4. Set clear, aligned objectives focused on quality and safety Leadership should establish clear, challenging and aligned goals at every level that prioritise patient safety and quality improvement over mere efficiency or target-driven metrics. This clarity helps reduce staff stress and confusion, enabling teams to focus on delivering compassionate, safe care supported by technology. Communicate clear expectations and priorities: Use consistent, transparent communication to align teams around patient safety goals and reduce ambiguity. Implement continuous feedback and learning systems: Regularly review performance data and patient feedback to refine objectives and improve care quality. Balance efficiency with human factors: Ensure operational goals do not compromise critical human skills or patient-centred care. 5. Champion diversity, inclusion and accountability in leadership Inclusive leadership practices that promote equality and diversity are essential to fostering innovation and ethical decision-making in healthcare technology adoption. Leaders must also clarify accountability frameworks for technology-related decisions and errors, ensuring responsibility is shared and transparent to maintain patient safety. Promote inclusive leadership practices: Value diverse perspectives and foster equity to enhance innovation and ethical decision-making Clarify accountability frameworks: Define roles and responsibilities clearly, especially concerning technology-related decisions and errors, to maintain trust and safety Model human-centred leadership traits: Practice self-awareness, compassion and mindfulness to create cultures of excellence, trust, and caring. By integrating these strategies, human-centric leaders can effectively translate the insights from the Leadership Futures report into practical actions that improve patient safety, staff satisfaction and overall health system resilience. This approach embraces complexity and change as opportunities, not obstacles, which then enables sustainable progress in better health and care delivery. Further reading Amelia N. 6 Effective Leadership Strategies for Healthcare in 2025. Edstellar, 31 December 2024. West M, et al. Leadership in Healthcare: a Summary of the Evidence Base. Kings Fund; Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management; Center for Creative Leadership, 2015. LeClerc L, Kennedy K, Campis S. Human-Centered Leadership in Health Care: An Idea That's Time Has Come. Nursing Administration Quarterly 2020; 44(2):p 117-26.

The rapid development of technology and innovation in women’s health, from fertility and maternal care to menopause, presents immense opportunities for improving patient outcomes. However, challenges persist in ensuring patient safety, demonstrating clinical utility, and driving adoption within health systems. Additionally, barriers to equitable access and persistent health inequalities continue to limit impact. This panel will explore best practices in women’s health innovation, drawing on international perspectives to identify where progress is being made and what lessons can be applied globally. How can we accelerate safe, effective, and equitable adoption of new technologies to transform women’s health at scale? Confirmed speakers include: Professor Henrietta Hughes - Patient Safety Commissioner for England Professor Naveena Yanamala - Associate Professor of Medicine and Chief of Clinical Research & AI Innovation, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Mary Akangbe - CEO and Founder, Zenith Global Health Dr Farah Al-Saif - Public Health Expert, Ministry of Health, Saudi Arabia Karina Vazirova, CEO and C0-Founder of the FemTech Lab Register

Healthcare Science Week, 10–16 March 2025, brings together over 50 scientific specialisms and professional groups to celebrate and raise awareness of this diverse NHS workforce. These experts play a crucial role in diagnosing diseases, developing treatments and ensuring the effectiveness of medical technologies. Their work is essential for patient care. To celebrate Healthcare Science Week, Patient Safety Learning has pulled together 13 blogs and interviews published on the hub showcasing the important work healthcare professionals, scientists and researchers are doing to improve patient safety. 1. Decoding diabetes research – an innovative approach that makes scientific knowledge accessible to everyone D-Coded is an online resource that presents easy-to-understand summaries of diabetes research studies. It aims to make the latest knowledge and developments accessible to people who don't have a medical or scientific background. In this blog, Jazz Sethi, Founder and Director of the Diabesties Foundation and part of the global team that developed D-Coded, discusses the need for the resource and outlines how it will help people living with diabetes to better understand and manage their condition. 2. WireSafe®: Designing a new patient safety solution WireSafe® is an innovative solution designed to prevent retained guidewires during central venous catheter (CVC) insertion. Retained guidewires are never events that require urgent removal if accidentally left in. They occur in about 1 in 300,000 procedures. We interviewed Maryanne, who developed the WireSafe®, on the innovation, the human factor considerations in designing it and the difficulties she faced getting a new product into the NHS. 3. Using barcode scanning technology to improve blood group testing in unborn babies In this blog, the NHS Blood and Transfusion (NHSBT) and the Scan4Safety Team in the NHS England National Patient Safety Team explore how barcode scanning technology has improved testing for the D blood group in unborn babies. This technology has made the process more efficient, reduced errors and improved patient experience. 4. Patient Safety Spotlight interview with Chidiebere Ibe, medical illustrator and medical student Chidiebere Ibe is passionate about increasing representation of Black people in all forms of medical literature. In this interview, he explains how lack of representation at all levels of the healthcare system leads to disparities in healthcare experiences and outcomes. He outlines the importance of speaking openly about how racial bias affects patient safety, and argues that dispelling damaging myths about particular patient groups starts with equipping people with accurate health knowledge from a young age. 5. Applying a robust approach to digital clinical safety in diagnosis Diagnostics and digital go hand in hand. Digital healthcare has brought so many advancements in diagnostics and we are at the point of another paradigm shift with the advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), with some early and convincing diagnostic-use cases. New things also bring (new) risks. Some we can predict and plan for, perhaps some we haven’t, and some we can’t yet. In this blog, Ben Jeeves, Associate Chief Clinical Information Officer and Clinical Safety Officer, looks at the digital clinical safety aspects in relation to diagnostic safety. 6. Lost tissue samples a thing of the past with new innovative tracking system? The stress and anxiety felt by patients awaiting a potential cancer diagnosis can be made much worse if they are told their sample has been lost. Delays can impact treatment options and patient outcomes. Dil Rathore is a Biomedical Scientist and Pathology Innovation Lead at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. In this interview, he tells us about a new tracking system he’s developed to reduce the number of patient tissue samples going missing. 7. Medical device safety: effective testing is key In this blog, University of Sheffield based researcher Dr Nicholas Farr explains why investing in the development of testing methods is key to ensuring medical devices are safe to use. Nicholas and colleagues at the University of Sheffield have developed innovative testing methods that mimic key features of the human body within the lab. He believes this will improve our understanding of the materials being used in the development of medical devices at an early stage in the process – saving time and money, and reducing the risk of patient harm. 8. “Our message about public involvement is don’t be afraid to start.” Interview with Barbara Molony-Oates from the NHS Health Research Authority In this interview, we speak to Barbara Molony-Oates, public involvement manager at the Health Research Authority about why it's important to involve patients and members of the public in health research. Barbara tells us about the Shared Commitment to Public Involvement, a partnership of research organisations working together to promote, support and improve public involvement in health and social care research. She describes how the Shared Commitment was developed and how it is helping researchers involve individuals and communities who have never before considered taking part in research. 9. Coil procedures: Exploring negative experiences through qualitative research Trainee Clinical Psychologist, Sabrina Pilav tells us about her latest research project exploring negative experiences of coil/ intrauterine device (IUD) procedures. Sabrina explains how their in-depth qualitative methodology could contribute to improvements in the future. 10. Patient Safety Spotlight interview with Mark Sujan, Chartered Ergonomist and Human Factors Specialist Mark talks to us about how he came to work in healthcare, the vital role of safety scientists and human factors specialists in improving patient safety, and the challenges involved in integrating new technologies into the health system. 11. Improving diagnostic safety in surgery: A blog by Anna Paisley Safe diagnosis requires the gathering of information from multiple sources, including clinical history, examination, and laboratory and radiological tests. This information must then be distilled and interpreted to form a working diagnosis for treatment or further investigation. In this blog, Anna Paisley, a Consultant Upper GI Surgeon, talks about the challenges to safe surgical diagnosis and shares some of the strategies available to mitigate these challenges and aid safer, more timely diagnosis. 12. CardMedic: Empowering staff and patients to communicate across any barrier In this interview, anaesthetist Rachael Grimaldi tells us about CardMedic, the organisation she founded to empower staff and patients to communicate across any barrier. Rachael explains how their tools can be used to support vulnerable groups and reduce inequalities. 13. Implementation of bedside electronic transfusion checks at Barts Health Trust: Quantifying benefits In this blog, Laura Green, Consultant Haematologist at NHS Blood and Transplant and Barts Health NHS Trust, describes how a new electronic process to improve the safety of blood transfusions was implemented across all four Barts Health sites. She explains why the new system was needed, outlines the benefits for staff and patients and highlights the role of project governance and staff training in successful implementation. Can we help you with your research? Where the topic is relevant to patient safety, we can work with researchers in a number of ways: To help recruit participants To share links to published papers via the hub and through our social media. To create content (blogs, interviews, videos) that help provide context around findings or research projects. Contact the hub team at [email protected] to discuss further.

Digital technology offers the opportunity to revolutionise patient care, supporting the NHS to become more efficient, productive, cost-effective, and importantly, safer. This report published Public Policy Projects, in collaboration with Patient Safety Learning, highlights that the NHS will fail to unlock these opportunities without the prioritisation of patient safety. It sets out that although there are examples of successful technology implementation across the NHS, patients continue to be put at risk as efforts to digitalise services are not adequately considering patient safety. Key findings from this report include: A lack of user-centric design and interoperability between digital technologies is limiting scalable digital transformation and putting patients at risk. Digital clinical safety is being developed across the NHS, but a lack of resource and siloed working limits the ability for consistent monitoring of digital systems. A lack of understanding of digital technology and data is often tolerated among NHS leadership and the workforce is not adequately trained and/or supported to utilise digital technology. Opportunities to learn from the NHS patient safety reporting system are limited by a lack of data transparency and capacity for analysis. Digital poverty presents inherent patient safety risks where non-digital routes of access are not maintained, meaning digital transformation risks inadvertently widening inequalities. Commenting on the publication of this report, Patient Safety Learning's Chief Executive Helen Hughes said: “Digital health technologies will be key to delivering the forthcoming Ten Year Health Plan. However, if we are to fully realise the benefits of these changes, patient safety needs to be at the heart of these developments. When designing and implementing new technologies in health and care, we need to take a user-centred approach, with patient safety at its core. As this report highlights, there are some promising examples of where this is already happening. Though as the recommendations set out, greater action is needed with system-wide collaboration, to ensure that the opportunities of new technologies are realised and the risks to patient safety are addressed. Patient safety needs to be at the centre of everything we do.”

This blog from Pentland Medical and Dawn Stott Associates highlights the findings from their report ‘Surgical airway securement: A report analysing responses to a survey, focus groups and freedom of information requests’.[2] The aim of the work is to look at patient harm from surgical airway securement in critical care environments and, ultimately, to underscore the importance of continuous learning, a culture of transparency and collaboration across disciplines to sustain improvements in patient safety. Background Securing an airway device is a critical component of patient safety, particularly in situations where airway management is essential to life support, such as during surgery, emergency care or critical illness. The airway device, typically an endotracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway, ensures that a patient’s airway remains open for adequate oxygenation and ventilation. The WHO Guidelines for Safe Surgery states that “Securing the airway of a patient undergoing general anaesthesia is the single most critical event during induction.”[1] As all healthcare professionals working in the anaesthetic environment will know, properly securing the device is paramount as any displacement or dislodgement can lead to life-threatening complications like hypoxia, aspiration or airway obstruction. Ensuring that the airway stays in place for the time needed is an equally important part of this process. Currently, this is often done with the use of off-label materials, such as tape and ties, which can cause facial damage ranging from minor redness to severe tissue damage. This tape can also pose an infection risk, but, perhaps more pertinently, any off-label methods are not fit for purpose. Although they are embedded in healthcare practice and are used world over, tape and ties were never designed to perform airway securement. Consultation on airway device securement Following an inaugural round table discussion meeting led by Dawn Stott Associates, a ‘cross sector’ Short Life Working Group (SLWG) was formed to consult on the way an airway device is currently secured when a patient is undergoing a surgical intervention. The group’s goals were to identify systemic barriers to the standardisation of airway management and to develop guidance to support a more robust and consistent way of securing the airway device. The group’s mission was to: review current policy, guidance and legislation to help interpret and apply them to daily anaesthetic practice to support healthcare facilities and personnel with materials and resources on airway device securement and management to help ensure compliance with policy to establish an environment where standardisation of approach is accepted to make guidance available to support healthcare professionals ensure that the patient is safe. The group also reviewed the broader issues around patient safety and the cultural challenges around change management in securing an airway device with tapes. Current guidance What has been astonishing for the SLWG is that no guidance exists from any recognised bodies in the UK on securing an airway device. The Difficult Airway Society (DAS) is generally regarded as the leading authority on anything airway related, not just in the UK but also internationally. However, while the DAS guidance states that healthcare professionals should secure the airway device, it does not go beyond this to advise on best techniques or materials that should be used. This absence of national guidance has resulted in an inconsistent approach to securing an airway device within UK hospitals, and with it the risk of facial harm, infections and more serious incidents that are entirely preventable. Until now there has not been any solution designed and risk-assessed to secure an airway device in the theatre environment, leaving a vacuum where healthcare professionals worldwide are forced to improvise by developing their own techniques and by using off-label generic materials such as tape and ties. There are also a huge number of varying circumstances encountered involving the use of different airway products and surgical positions that further complicates matters when it comes to a standardised approach to airway device securement. It is the opinion of the SLWG that the report we have produced provides compelling evidence for an urgent review of the existing practices for airway securement and for guidelines to be established, which include the requirement for dedicated medical devices to perform airway device securement. The study We used three approaches to gather information: A survey for healthcare practitioners was developed to explore whether there is a standardised approach to securing an airway device in their hospital. The intention was to use the findings to support ongoing work around safer patient care and better clinical outcomes. Focus groups were held to provide insight into how things are currently being done. Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were sent to NHS Foundation Trusts. The information requested was for the period between the 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2023. The FOI requests were designed to define how patient safety is delineated around securing an airway device and how standardisation can be improved to ensure the reduction of current incidents of failure and infection to patients. What we found The responses from the FOI requests show that a substantial number of trusts have experienced inadequate patient outcomes because of poor airway management (see the tables below). It also highlighted that many trusts do not report these patient safety incidents. This is sometimes due to the normalisation of the process and that the incidents are so ‘small’ it is not felt necessary to report them. Feedback from one Trust suggested that many professionals involved in the management of airway did not want to change their practices. Several Trusts stated that they did not routinely record this type of information and would therefore only be able to fulfil the FOI request if they were paid to do so under Section 12 of the FOI Act, underlining the lack of normal visibility of this data. Total responses to the FOI questions Five hospitals were unable to provide the information in the format requested but responded as follows: Key findings from the survey 23% of the people surveyed were aware of incidents of poor patient care resulting from their airway securement techniques. How people currently secured an airway: - 57% used tapes and ties - 20.16 % used elastoplast or similar - 4.3% used a fit for purpose device (not specified) - 8.7% used a mixture of methods depending on procedure - 9.4% didn’t respond. 56.5% of the respondents were aware of the infection risks associated with using tapes. However, they continued to use this as a method of securing the airway device even though it is an unlicenced and unhygienic way of managing the securement. 95.7% of the respondents were aware that the airway may migrate during the intervention and could cause serious harm to the patient but continued to use the same methods of securement. During the focus groups we asked about communication. The responses below showed that there wasn’t always an open and honest culture within the operating department. Infection Prevention and Control guidance The National Infection Prevention and Control Manual, Chapter one, Standard Infection Control Precautions (SICPs) states that care equipment can be easily contaminated with blood and other bodily fluids and infectious agents.[3] They classify care equipment as either: Single use – equipment which is used once on a single patient then discarded. Must never be reused even on the same patient. Single patient use – equipment which can be reused on the same patient. Reusable invasive equipment – used once then decontaminated e.g. surgical instruments. Reusable non-invasive equipment (often referred to as communal equipment) – reused on more than one patient following decontamination e.g. commode, patient transfer trolley. Multi-patient rolls of tape are, by definition, classified as ‘non-invasive re-usable equipment’, which by reason of the SICPs above, must be decontaminated to adhere to the National Infection Control Standards. As findings from our surveys/focus groups made clear, this is not happening because rolls of tape by their structure cannot be decontaminated. Education Ongoing education is one of the most crucial elements of managing the securement of the patient airway. Many organisations have integrated crisis management training, including human factors education into their anaesthesia and airway management programmes.[4] Simulated learning offers a dynamic and risk-free environment where learners can apply theoretical knowledge to practical scenarios, enhancing understanding and retention. By mimicking real-world situations, it allows individuals to develop critical skills, problem-solving abilities and confidence without the consequences of real-life errors. Encouraging innovation and change There is a continuing desire to make airway management safer. Innovations and new equipment continue to be developed to support safer anaesthetic practices; however, if healthcare professionals were to put forward the suggestions of tapes and ties to the regulatory bodies that manage new innovations, they would not pass the scrutiny and rigor and endure the processes in place to get the product to market. This speaks volumes about the archaic way of securing an airway device – but how do we encourage change within an environment that is entrenched in history and a ‘this is the way we have always done it’ mentality? New regulatory systems and sometimes political unawareness can cause pressures on the industry due to their often single-minded need to cut headline costs. Only recently, the Association for British Healthcare Industries announced that £50k worth of registration projects have been withdrawn due to the costs associated with compliance. This will have a catastrophic impact on much needed healthcare innovation and products that are designed to support patient safety.[5] How collaboration can make things happen This project has highlighted the importance of a team approach when trying to develop a standardised approach to different parts of the critical care environment. Another issue the project group discussed was how standardisation of certain practices made things much easier. However, it was thought that all approaches for standardisation should be backed up by rationale and be evidence based. Those involved in the discussions felt that training of new members of the team would be much easier if certain ways of working were standardised. Conclusion Effective airway device securement is a critical component of patient safety in clinical settings. Proper securement techniques reduce the risk of unplanned extubation, displacement, infection risks, facial tissue harm and compromising the airway, which can lead to life-threatening complications. Healthcare providers must be well-trained in securing airway devices and remain vigilant in monitoring their stability throughout patient care. Standardised protocols, high-quality materials and evidence-based practices are essential for ensuring the reliability of airway device securement. Regular assessments, interdisciplinary collaboration and the use of checklists further enhance safety by promoting consistency and reducing errors. In their WHA 72.6 Resolution (2019), WHO Health Ministers mandated for the global patient safety action plan 2021-2030 to be implemented.[6] Within the resolution at 5.3 they suggest they will make available guidance on how to create cultures that operate transparently and encourage speaking up.[7] Unfortunately, through the research we have undertaken and discussions we have had with individuals throughout this project, we have witnessed a damaging culture that exists within the healthcare environment. We believe that this is leading to a nation of healthcare professions who feel let down, devalued and unable to speak up and speak out to support better patient results. We did meet and talk to some professionals who worked in an environment of support and nurture, but sadly the majority of individuals felt unheard in a massive environment of ‘noise’. It has become evident that trusts generally only change their practices following an incident which is costing them more than it would have done to use a product that is designed for purpose. Failure to see the impact of such obstinacy on the patient and their wellbeing is a very blinkered approach to improvement and innovation. By prioritising proper securement practices, healthcare teams can improve patient outcomes, prevent adverse events and reinforce a culture of safety in airway management. Ongoing research and innovation in device design and securement techniques will continue to advance this critical aspect of patient care. Despite its contributions, this study is not without limitations and future research is needed with larger and more diverse samples, refining methodology and exploring additional variables. However, the outputs do highlight the issue that the project is championing for change. We are pleased to report that our work has garnered international interest, prompting efforts to replicate the exercise in both the USA and Europe. This global recognition underscores the significance of our findings and highlights the potential for broader applications in enhancing safety standards worldwide. These strategies, combined with continuous education and integration of innovative technologies, demonstrate the potential for significant improvement in patient safety related to airway device management. References World Health Organization. Guidelines for Safe Surgery 2009. Safe Surgery Saves Lives, 2009. Pentland Medical and Dawn Stott Associates. Surgical airway securement: A report analysing responses to a survey, focus groups and freedom of information requests, November 2024. NIPCM. National Infection Prevention and Control Manual, Chapter one; Standard Infection Control Precautions (SICPs). Tankard K, Sharifpour M, Chang MG, Bittner EA. Design and Implementation of Airway Response Teams to Improve Patient Safety. J Clin Med 2022; 11(21): 6336. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11216336. Fick M. Insight: Medical device makers drop products as EU law sows chaos. Reuters, 19 December 2022. World Health Organization. WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021 – 2030. Towards eliminating available harm in healthcare, 3 August 2021. World Health Organization. Consensus statement: Role of policy-makers and health care leaders in implementation of the Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021–2030, 13 July 2022. You can read the full report of this study here or by scanning the QR code below: