Search the hub

Patient Partnership Week (29 June-3rd July 2026) is a moment to focus on a simple but powerful truth: healthcare works best when patients are treated as partners.  Across the week, The Patients Association are bringing together patients, professionals, policymakers, and researchers to explore what meaningful partnership looks like in practice and why it matters, where progress is being made, and what still needs to change.  Patient Partnership Week 2026 webinars Understanding the causes of health inequalities and the role of trust in improving outcomes 29th June 2026, 3:45 - 4:45pm Book now Unlocking patient engagement with the People and Communities guidelines 30th June 2026, 9 - 10am Book now Do patients’ goals, values, and preferences really shape their care? 30th June 2026, 4 - 5pm Book now Power to the people? The 10 Year Health Plan, one year on 1st July 2026, 11am - 12pm Book now Why prioritising patient trust increases the value of using technology and data to improve research and care 2nd July 2026, 12:30 - 1:30pm Book now Equity in access: tackling barriers to treatment and care 3rd July 2026, 10 - 11am Book now Getting through: fixing how NHS communicates with patients 3rd July 2026, 2 - 3pmBook now

This webinar will assess progress to date on the 10 Year Plan’s commitment to give “power to the people” by amplifying patient voice, expanding patient choice and reprioritising people’s experiences of care. The conversation will be facilitated by Dr Rageshri Dhairyawan, NHS doctor and author of Unheard: The Medical Practice of Silencing, and will be tailored to what progress has been made by June 2026 towards the Plan’s commitments. Panellists will share views and recommendations on how these commitments can be delivered to ensure person centred care is embedded in a reformed health service and how to consider turning the 10YP blueprint into reality. Register

At Patient Safety Learning we believe that sharing insights and learning is vital to improving outcomes and reducing harm. That’s why we created the hub; providing a space for people to come together and share their experiences, resources and good practice examples. We have collated 15 resources relating to men's health, including information about male cancers, men's mental health, how to engage men earlier and insights around the impact of traditional ideas of masculinity on patient safety. *Trigger warning: some of the content below focuses on suicide. 1 Men's Health Strategy for England This document sets out the government’s 10-year strategy for men’s health in England. It details the government’s vision for men’s health over the next 10 years and actions they are taking now to improve the health and wellbeing of all men and boys in England. 2 Men’s Health: How to improve health outcomes, knowledge, and behaviours This report sets out the findings of new research conducted by Healthwatch England to inform the Government’s first-ever men’s health strategy for England. They commissioned a nationally representative poll of 3,575 men aged 18+ in June 2025 and also drew on local Healthwatch engagement, with men from diverse backgrounds, spanning a wide range of ages, ethnicities, occupations, and areas. 3 Men’s health: The lives of men in our communities Men in England are facing “a silent health crisis”, dying nearly four years earlier than women, while suffering disproportionately higher rates of cancers, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, according to a report by the Local Government Association. They are urging the Government to implement a men's health strategy similar to the women's health strategy of 2022. It wants men’s health to be recognised as “a national concern”. 4 Overcoming the barriers to engaging with prostate cancer Orchid is the UK’s leading charity for those affected by male cancer. In this interview, we speak to Ali Orhan, Chief Executive and Director of their Overcoming the Barriers to Engaging with Prostate Cancer project. Ali tells us how they are working alongside a network of volunteer community champions to improve awareness, support better outcomes and reduce health inequalities. 5 Prostate Cancer UK: risk checker Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, but most men with early prostate cancer don’t have symptoms. Use this risk checker to find out what you should do. 6 Samaritans Handbook: Engaging men earlier: a guide to service design This handbook from the Samaritans provides a set of principles upon which wellbeing initiatives for men should be based, drawn from what men have said is important to them. By following these principles, wellbeing initiatives are more likely to be effective for, and appeal to, men going through tough times before reaching crisis point. 7 Infopool prostate cancer patient resource This patient resource created by Prostate Cancer Research aims to equip patients and the public with information about prostate cancer. It contains information on testing and diagnosis, treatment choices, living with side effects, and clinical trials. 8 Men's Health - How can we take action? Here are our top 5 things to know and do Top tips for men on keeping healthy and advice on prostate and testicular cancer. 9 Prostate Cancer UK: Best practice pathway Developed to support healthcare professionals at the front line of prostate cancer diagnosis and care, Prostate Cancer UK's Best Practice Pathway uses easy to follow flowcharts to guide healthcare professionals deliver best practice diagnosis, treatment and support. 10 HSSIB report: Management of acute onset testicular pain This investigation reviewed the diagnostic and treatment pathway for testicular torsion. There was a predominant focus on delays and the human factors associated with the pathway. The investigation identified system-wide recommendations designed to prevent delays to the identification and treatment of testicular torsion happening in the future. 11 Prostate cancer: getting information and support This leaflet helps signpost people to support and information about prostate cancer, both nationally and regionally. 12 Why harmful gender stereotypes surrounding men’s approaches towards their feelings need challenging This blog explores men's mental health – how men are reluctant to seek support when they are struggling, why the suicide rate is so high, what initiatives exist to encourage men to seek help and what more could be done. 13 King's Fund blog: Inequalities in men’s health: why are they not being addressed? Almost half of England’s population is male, yet inequalities in men’s health seldom get specific attention. The women’s health strategy for England shone a light on the health care needs of girls and women through their life course, highlighting areas specific to their health – such as maternity and the menopause – and inequalities in health outcomes. But the wide, and widening, health inequalities experienced by men also require focus. 14 The incredibly obvious thing you should do about painful testicles Watch this short film about what to do if you experience pain in your testicle/s, by Cardiff Fertility Studies and the British Fertility Society, made in partnership with Orchid. 15 An Unfilled Prescription: Tapping Pharmacy's Potential to Boost Men's Health This report from the Men's Health Forum examines the role of community pharmacy in improving men’s health in the UK, the theme of Men’s Health Week 2026. The report sets out a five-point plan that pharmacies should adopt to become a male-friendly pharmacy, which encourages more men to engage. Share your insights and experiences Have you, or a loved one, experienced any of the issues raised in this blog? Would you like to share your insights to help improve outcomes in men's health? Perhaps you work in men's health and can share some of the barriers to safe care and what you believe needs to change to improve outcomes. You can share your thoughts in the comments below (sign up first for free) or email our team at [email protected].

At Patient Safety Learning we believe that sharing insights and learning is vital to improving outcomes and reducing harm. That's why we created the hub; to provide a space for people to come together and share their experiences, resources and good practice examples. Diabetes is a condition that causes the amount of glucose in a person's blood to be too high. When you have type 1 diabetes, your body can’t make any insulin at all, whereas with type 2, you either can’t make enough insulin, or it can’t work properly. There are also other types of diabetes including gestational diabetes, which some women develop during pregnancy, maturity onset diabetes of the young (MODY) and latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA). It is important that people with diabetes are supported to maintain good blood glucose control through diet, insulin and other diabetes medications, to prevent both acute and long-term complications. We’ve selected our top picks of useful resources about diabetes. Self-management is perhaps the most important aspect of treating diabetes effectively, so we've included some resources aimed at helping patients manage their diabetes too. 1 HSSIB reports The Health Services Safety Investigation Body (HSSIB) has published a series of reports considering the self-administration of insulin by people with diabetes mellitus. Each report focuses on specific groups of people who, due to their circumstances, may be at increased risk of harm because of the way they self-administer insulin. Insulin: supporting safe self-administration for patients in the community with a mental health problem Insulin: supporting safe self-administration for patients in the community with a disability Insulin: supporting patients to safe administration in inpatient settings 2 Decoding diabetes research – an innovative approach that makes scientific knowledge accessible to everyone 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. 3 Leading for patient safety: a conversation with Partha Kar Partha Kar, National Specialty Advisor for NHS England, has led work that has had an enormous impact for patients and for patient safety. In this video podcast, Steph O'Donohue from Patient Safety Learning talks to Partha about his leadership style and how it has helped him drive forward significant change in an often challenging context. 4 Decision support tool: making a decision about managing type 1 diabetes This leaflet from NHS England aims to help people with type 1 diabetes decide between the different technologies available to manage diabetes. It contains summaries of devices available and infographics outlining eligibility criteria for continuous glucose monitors (CGM), insulin pumps and hybrid-closed loop systems. 5 10 Year Vision: For diabetes prevention, care and treatment This report from Diabetes UK sets out a clear plan for the UK government about how it can improve health outcomes and tackle inequality for people living with diabetes by 2035. 6 D1abasics: Equipping staff to care safely for inpatients with diabetes The inpatient diabetes team at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust recently launched D1abasics, an initiative that aims to improve inpatient care for people with diabetes. In this blog, Diabetes Consultant Mayank Patel and Inpatient Diabetes Specialist Nurse Paula Johnston outline the approach and explain how it will equip staff across all specialties with the basic knowledge to care safely for people with diabetes in hospital. 7 Improving diabetes care in inpatient mental health settings Despite the prevalence of diabetes amongst individuals with Serious Mental Illness (SMI), diabetes care is not currently audited within mental health inpatient settings as it audited in physical health settings. This project piloted an audit to assess the diabetes care within London NHS Mental Health Trusts. 8 Diabetes tech: Do national aspirations and local practice align? In this blog, a person with type 1 diabetes describes their recent experience upgrading their insulin pump, a medical device used to continuously deliver insulin instead of taking multiple daily injections. They describe how communication issues and gaps in staff knowledge led to a significant delay in accessing the pump, which caused them significant stress. They also ask whether recent announcements about increased access to diabetes technology over the next few years will match up to the reality experienced by people with diabetes accessing care at local healthcare organisations. 9 NHS England - Language Matters: language and diabetes The language that healthcare professionals use to talk about diabetes can have a profound impact on how people living with diabetes, and those who care for them, experience their condition and feel about living with it. This guidance by NHS England sets out practical examples of language that will encourage positive interactions with people living with diabetes. When people with diabetes feel encouraged and empowered to manage their condition, it has been shown to make a difference to their health outcomes. The examples in ‘Language Matters’ are based on research and supported by a simple set of principles. 10 Key things to remember if you use injectable medication to treat your diabetes This checklist by TREND Diabetes outlines the steps patients should take to ensure they inject their insulin or other diabetes medication correctly. It explains the importance of taking steps such as moving injection sites and changing needles, and outlines how failing to do this can affect blood glucose control. 11 Improving safety for diabetic inpatients: 4 key steps In this video, Partha Kar, National Specialty Advisor for Diabetes, shares four steps to improve safety for inpatients with diabetes, based on information from the National Diabetes Inpatient Audit. He also highlights key resources to help staff improve their knowledge of diabetes and understand how to offer the safest care to people with diabetes when they are staying in hospital. 12 Diabetes technology is life-changing, but we need to be prepared when it fails In this blog, Andrew Stroud talks about his family's experiences supporting their daughter, Bia, to manage her type 1 diabetes. He describes the huge value of technology in improving diabetes management and reducing the mental burden of the condition on people with diabetes and their parents and carers. However, like all technology, medical devices for diabetes can fail, and Andrew highlights the need to be prepared for this situation to ensure the person with diabetes is safe while they cannot use the devices they rely on every day. 13 How safe are closed loop artificial pancreas systems? Closed-loop artificial pancreas systems are self-regulating systems for administering insulin to patients with type 1 diabetes. They allow for tighter blood glucose control and reduce the decision-making burden for people with diabetes. In this blog, Lotty Tizzard, Patient Safety Learning's Content and Engagement Manager, takes a look at the benefits and potential patient safety risks associated with closed-loop artificial pancreas systems (APS). People with diabetes have developed the algorithm that runs these systems and made it freely available to anyone wanting to build their own DIY artificial pancreas. This has spurred the medical tech industry to develop commercial systems, which will make the technology more widely available. But there are challenges in ensuring accessibility to all people with type 1 diabetes who would benefit from the technology, and there are questions about regulation and liability. 14 A systematic approach to insulin safety (video series by Communications PharmSocNI) This video series looks at systematic approaches to insulin safety, including: Human Factors - A Journey of Discovery; SEIPS – The Swiss Army Knife Approach; and Summary & Applying the Learning. 15 System-wide strategies for better diabetes care chapter 1: Evidence approved medicines and chapter 2: Ensuring equitable access to glucose sensing technology for type 2 insulin users Two reports from Public Policy Projects (PPP). Chapter 1 calls for changes in the use of approved medicines to improve diabetes care in the UK and chapter 2 highlights the opportunities and challenges brought by CGM technology to type 2 insulin users and other patient groups. 16 National Diabetes Foot Care Audit 2018 to 2023 Ulceration of the foot in people living with diabetes presents significant challenges, including emotional, physical and financial costs, and is associated with increased risk of both amputation and death. It affects between 1 and 2% of all people with diabetes each year and its management accounts for approximately 1% of the total NHS budget. The aim of the National Diabetes Foot Care Audit is to measure factors associated with increased risk of ulcer onset and adverse ulcer outcomes, and to share information relating to best clinical practice. 17 Diabulimia: what is it and why have so few people heard of it? Type 1 diabetes with disordered eating (T1DE), or diabulimia as some experts call it, is a serious eating disorder that people with type 1 diabetes can develop where the person reduces or stops taking their insulin as a way of managing their weight. The condition can be life-threatening. Although studies are limited, it’s estimated that eating disorders affect more than a third of patients with type 1 diabetes. This episode of the Healthcare Improvement podcast looks at diabulimia and a new toolkit published by SIGN, part of Healthcare Improvement Scotland, which sets out recommendations to raise awareness and provide guidance on how best to support people living with the diabulimia. 18 NHS England: Children and young people diabetes toolkit This toolkit is designed to support integrated care systems (ICSs) to design, plan, and deliver high-quality treatment and care for children and young adults aged 0-25 years with all types of diabetes. 19 Insulin therapy in primary care The management of insulin therapy requires knowledge of the type of diabetes it is being used for and appropriate dosing, as well as correct injection technique, to prevent complications and medication errors. Diabetes nursing specialist Debbie Hicks shares key points on the management of insulin therapy for nurses in primary care. 20 Handbook: Diabetes footcare in dark skin tones Covering essential topics such as physiology, history-taking, assessment techniques, and investigative methods, this handbook has been designed to provide essential information as well as quick tips to healthcare professionals to improve foot care for people with dark skin living with diabetes. Featuring clinical assessments and visual/audio guides, this handbook is the product of a unique collaboration across healthcare professional specialities, and with input from people living with diabetes. 21 Addressing racial inequalities in paediatric diabetes Dita Aswani and Fulya Mehta are both consultant paediatricians and NHS England national advisors for Children and Young adults’ (CYA) diabetes. In this blog, they outline racial inequalities that persist in paediatric diabetes and present five key areas for change. In summary they talk about what healthcare professionals can do to reduce inequalities through their own practice. Do you have a resource or story about diabetes to share? We’d love to hear about it - leave a comment below or join the hub to share your own post.

This webinar, as part of Patients Association's Patient Partnership Week, will explore how organisations can partner with patients in the use of health data, placing trust and transparency at the heart of decision making. It will examine how technology currently uses patient data, why involving patient panels is essential, and how this supports better outcomes and public confidence. Register

Imagine Citizens Network believes meaningful change in healthcare begins by listening to the people at the centre of it. This webinar will bring together health leaders, advocates, and community voices for an inspiring conversation about strengthening the patient voice in health care and exploring how stories and lived experiences can help drive real system improvement. Hosted by the Institute of Health Economics, the session will highlight best practices in increasing the patient voice in health care, featuring the internationally recognized Care Opinion program and the growing work happening in Alberta to gather feedback from Albertans receiving health services across the province. Together, we’ll explore how creating safe, accessible ways for people to share their experiences can build trust, improve care, strengthen accountability, and shape a more responsive health system for everyone. Featured speakers include: • Catherine Douglas, Health Advocate, Alberta • James Munro, Director, Research & Development, Care Opinion UK • Don McLeod, Executive Director, Imagine Citizens Network • Mollie Cole, Executive Director, Health System Improvement, Health Quality Alberta Moderator: John Sproule, Senior Policy Director, Institute of Health Economics Register

On the 14 May 2026 the UK Government introduced the Health Bill in the House of Commons, also known as the NHS Modernisation Bill. This new legislation is intended to introduce two significant changes, joining up health information and abolishing NHS England. This article pulls together a number of different reflections shared on this bill as it proceeds through Parliament. The Health Bill 2026-27 is a new piece of Government legislation which aims to: Improve patient safety and experience through a new single patient record, enabling joined-up, proactive care and empowering patients. Put power and resources in the hands of frontline NHS organisations by abolishing NHS England and stripping back national bureaucracy. Clarify the role of local health bodies, giving them real flexibility to design and deliver health services to best meet the needs of their local populations. Department of Health and Social Care The UK Government has published a collection of resources about the Health Bill, including fact sheets on the following topics: Single Patient Record Role and functions of the restructured Department of Health and Social Care Data and digital functions Oversight of the health system Integrated Care Boards as strategic commissioners Providers Patient safety Patient voice Patient Safety Learning Following the announcement of the NHS Modernisation Bill in the King’s Speech 2026, Patient Safey Learning published an article highlighting six key takeaways from this speech from a patient safety perspective. This includes reflections on specific provisions in the Bill including: Transferring the Health Services Safety Investigations Body functions to the Care Quality Commission. Creating a new single patient record. Transferring the functions of Healthwatch England to the Department of Health and Social Care and creating a new Patient Experience Directorate in the Department of Health and Social Care. Abolish NHS England and making several changes to the role of Integated Care Boards. The King’s Fund The health and care charity and think tank, The King’s Fund, have created a new area on their website where they are sharing all their latest analysis, commentary and responses on the Health Bill as this legislation developments. This includes an article by their Chief Executive Sarah Woolnough setting out five tests for the NHS Modernisation Bill. Nuffield Health In this article, Becks Fisher, Director of Research and Policy at the Nuffield Trust, discusses key issues raised by the NHS Modernisation Bill. He considers this in the context of the departure of Wes Streeting MP as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and his replacement with James Murray MP. Health Service Journal In this episode of the Health Service Journal Health Check Podcast, Annabelle Collins and Dave West are joined by Hugh Alderwick, Health Foundation director of policy and research, to help unpick the 200-page legislation and what it will mean for the service. House of Commons This article provides a brief overview of patient safety issues raised in a debate in the House of Commons on Monday 1 June 2026, during the second reading of the Health Bill 2026-27. The second reading is the stage of the UK legislative process where Members of Parliament (MPs) debate the general principles and main purpose of a proposed piece of legislation. Carnall Farrar (CF) In a helpful infographic, CF’s snapshot of the NHS Modernisation Bill focuses on the provisions most relevant to NHS leaders and executives: what is changing, when, and what it may mean in practice.

The rapid development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) in health and social care raises professional, ethical and legal questions. In February, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care hosted a participatory workshop in collaboration with academics from the University of Bristol, Dr Helen Smith and Professor Jonathan Ives to explore how we can guide and regulate health and care professionals who use AI. The workshop brought together professional regulators and Accredited Registers, as well as patients, service users and members of the public. Through group discussions and a series of real-world scenarios, participants explored themes such as AI safety, bias, transparency and accountability. In this blog, Patrick Murphy, Policy Advisor, reflects on the messages that came out of the workshop. The value of lived experience The workshop reinforced a key message, that the future of AI in health and care cannot be shaped by technical expertise alone. Creating spaces where patients and service users work alongside regulators and Accredited Registers supports safer innovation. Lived experience brings vital insight into how systems work in practice, where risks can emerge, what the public want and need from regulation, and how to build trust. It also helps support the safe and reliable integration of AI. The workshop was designed with participation in mind. Patients and service users took part alongside regulators and accredited registers on an equal footing. In a space that can sometimes feel highly technical, the workshop showed that meaningful public involvement is both possible and necessary. Participants with lived experience engaged confidently with topics such as assurance, transparency and accountability. Discussions also covered how regulation, standards and guidance are experienced by the people they are meant to serve. A consistent message throughout the day was that patients and service users are not just observers of AI policy and regulation, they are essential partners in getting it right. Their contributions raised practical questions and real-world examples, and kept the focus on how AI-enabled decisions can affect people’s lives, access to services and confidence in care. Equity, transparency and trust Patients, service users and members of the public highlighted several issues that deserve particular attention as AI becomes more common across health and care. If engagement only reaches the most confident, connected or well-resourced groups, AI tools and the rules around them risk being shaped by a narrow range of experience. True inclusion means actively involving people who are often overlooked, so innovation serves everyone and not just those who are easiest to reach. To support safe and fair innovation, tackling inequality needs to be built into every stage, from development, to procurement and service design, to long-term monitoring after deployment. Fairness and equity must be central, not an afterthought. Avoiding harm requires more than technical fixes. It also needs careful scrutiny of the data that feeds AI systems. That includes the data used to train models and the data used in designing health and care services. It is also essential to be clear about which outcomes are being measured and how success is defined. Trust depends on clarity, and it is important to give consideration to how AI is integrated in health and social care. Patients and service users should not feel like they are interacting with a 'black box'. It should be clear when AI is being used, what role it is playing in someone’s care and what options are available if something feels wrong. Empowering people helps them remain partners in their own health and care journey. The workshop highlighted challenges but also the opportunities for health and social care improvement presented by AI. As we navigate this technological transformation, patients and service users should remain empowered through co-production, helping to shape the standards, guidance and regulation that govern how AI is designed, deployed and monitored in practice. To find out more about the workshop and read the report, visit: Artificial intelligence - how to guide and regulate for health and social care professionals using AI

Risa Mallory is a retired psychotherapist from Canada and a hub Topic leader. After a serious cardiovascular event in 2018 she became a patient advocate, collaborating with organisations across the globe.  In this blog, Risa contends that patient-centred care provides a good foundation but should not be the end goal. She calls on healthcare systems to evolve towards patient-led care, suggesting that this is key to ensuring that patients are treated as partners rather than participants.  When you live with heart disease, healthcare stops being abstract very quickly. It becomes personal, constant, and at times overwhelming. Appointments, medications, test results, lifestyle changes—these are not theoretical concepts, they shape how you live each day. Over time, I have learned that how care is delivered matters just as much as what care is delivered. That is where the distinction between patient-centred and patient-led healthcare becomes meaningful. Patient-centred care Patient-centred care is a term I hear often. Clinicians use it to describe care that considers my needs, values, and preferences. On the surface, this sounds exactly right. As a cardiac patient, I want to be treated as a whole person, not just a heart condition. I want my concerns listened to, my fears acknowledged, and my circumstances taken into account. When patient-centred care is done well, it feels respectful. My cardiologist explains options, my nurse checks in on how I’m managing, and decisions are made with me, not just about me. But as someone who lives with this condition every day—not just during clinic visits—I have come to realise that patient-centred care still often keeps control firmly within the healthcare system. The care may be tailored to me, but it is usually still designed, paced, and directed by professionals. I am invited to the table, but I do not always get to set the agenda. That is where patient-led healthcare differs. Patient-led care Patient-led care recognises something fundamental: I am the one living inside this body. I am the one who feels the side effects, manages the fatigue, navigates fear after a hospital admission, and tries to balance medical advice with real life. In a patient-led model, my lived experience is not just considered—it is treated as expertise. As a cardiac patient, being patient-led does not mean I reject clinical knowledge or expect to make decisions alone. I still rely deeply on my healthcare team’s training and experience. What changes is the balance of power. Instead of being asked, “What matters to you?” after decisions are mostly formed, patient-led care asks that question at the beginning—and allows the answer to shape the pathway forward. For example, when discussing treatment options, patient-centred care might present several evidence-based choices and ask which one I prefer. Patient-led care goes further. It asks how those options will affect my daily life, my mental health, my ability to work or care for family, and whether the recommended plan is realistic for me to sustain. It allows me to say, “This may be clinically ideal, but it doesn’t fit my life,” without fear of being labelled non-compliant. From participants to partners The difference becomes especially clear after a cardiac event. In hospital, patient-centred care might ensure good communication, compassionate interactions, and shared decision-making. Once discharged, however, the burden of care shifts heavily onto the patient. Medications, monitoring symptoms, lifestyle changes—suddenly, I am expected to lead my own care without always being given the tools, confidence, or ongoing support to do so. Patient-led healthcare recognises this gap and works to close it. Patient-led care values partnership beyond appointments. It supports education that empowers rather than overwhelms. It acknowledges emotional recovery as part of cardiac recovery. It invites patients into service design, research priorities, and policy decisions—not as a token gesture, but as equal contributors. After all, systems built without patient input often fail to meet patient needs. From my perspective, patient-centred care is an important foundation, but it is not the end goal. It still positions patients as recipients of care, even when that care is compassionate and individualised. Patient-led healthcare moves us from being participants to being partners. It trusts that patients, when supported appropriately, can help guide better, safer, and more humane care. Living with heart disease has taught me that my voice matters—not just in my own treatment, but in shaping the systems meant to support people like me. True progress in healthcare will come when patient-centred care evolves into patient-led care, where lived experience is not an afterthought, but a driving force. More blogs by Risa Compassion is medicine: a patient safety perspective The power of being heard in healthcare When lived experience is embedded at every stage of research Women’s heart health - a patient safety priority Why the patient voice matters when things go wrong

The King’s Speech 2026 sets out the programme of legislation that the UK Government intends to pursue in its next parliamentary session. This blog highlights six key takeaways from this speech from a patient safety perspective. On Wednesday 13 May 2026, Kings Charles III delivered his annual speech in the Lords Chamber at the State Opening of Parliament.[1] Written by the Government and delivered by the Monarch, the speech presents opportunity at the start of a new parliamentary session for a government to set out its plans for the year ahead. This year’s speech includes two pieces of proposed legislation that have, potentially, significant implications for patient safety: NHS Modernisation Bill Public Office (Accountability) Bill In this blog, we highlight six takeaways from these proposed bills from a patient safety perspective. 1. Future of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body The NHS Modernisation Bill includes several changes to the patient safety landscape in England. These involve the implementation of several key recommendations put forward in Dr Penny Dash’s Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape last year.[2] This includes the recommendation to transfer the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) functions to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). In our response to the Dash Review, we stated our belief that HSSIB has an important independent role in the health system which should be retained.[3] There are understandable concerns about the potential for its independence to be compromised by its functions being transferred to the CQC.[4] [5] More broadly, we know that many staff working in healthcare do not feel confident raising concerns. As NHS Staff Survey results continue to illustrate, nearly two-fifths of staff say they do not feel safe to speak up about concerns.[6] Recognising the importance of staff feeling able to speak freely in investigations, HSSIB currently conducts these using a ‘safe space’ approach. This prohibits, on a legal basis, the unauthorised disclosure of protected material. Even if this legal assurance is maintained under these proposed changes, there still may be concerns that moving HSSIB into the CQC could potentially undermine staff confidence that confidentiality will be maintained. If confidence in the independence and confidentiality of HSSIB’s investigations is undermined, whether in reality or perception, this could compromise understanding of what is really happening on the ground. HSSIB’s ability to do this is an essential prerequisite to understand what the risks to patient safety are and the action needed to address these. We await further detail in the NHS Modernisation Bill on how these challenges will be addressed. 2. Embedding patient voice in national decision making Other notable recommendations from Dr Penny Dash’s review expected to feature in the NHS Modernisation Bill include: Transferring the functions of Healthwatch England to the Department of Health and Social Care. Developing a new Patient Experience Directorate in the Department. In our response to the Dash Review, we welcomed the proposal to create a new National Director of Patient Experience, alongside a Patient Experience Directorate. A new central body offers potential benefits for pooling expertise and resources. However, questions remain as to whether these changes could risk making the routes through which patient experience and concerns influence decision making less visible and more diffuse.[7] [8] [9] [10] It is vital that these changes improve the health systems capacity to listen and respond to patient experiences. We believe that an important element of this will be ensuring this new Patient Experience Directorate can benefit from regional and local experience and expertise. We would expect to see further detail setting this out in due course, considering how this will connect with local models for engaging with patients, families and carers. Specifically, we would also seek clarity on how this Directorate will work with local and national Patient Safety Partners, whose roles were not mentioned in the Dash Review. 3. Creating a new single patient record Another key strand of the NHS Modernisation Bill will be plans to create a new Single Patient Record. This is intended to “enable people to see their own health records securely on the NHS App, empowering them to make informed decisions about their own health”.[11] In our response to the 10 Year Health Plan for England, we stated our support for this initiative.[12] It is broadly acknowledged that if implemented effectively, this could make a real difference in improving joined-up communication in the NHS.[13] Patients not only need easy access to their records, but simple mechanisms to flag concerns and address any inaccuracies in a timely manner. Mistakes in records can create significant patient safety risks, and as illustrated by patient experiences shared with us on our patient safety platform the hub, amending these is often not a simple process.[14] 4. Introducing the Hillsborough Law The proposed Public Office (Accountability) Bill would put in place a new professional and legal Duty of Candour—meaning public officials must act with honesty and integrity at all times. This was previously announced in September 2025 and the Bill itself has already been tabled in Parliament.[15] We welcome this legislation. Patient Safety Learning believes it should be a requirement to be honest and transparent with patients and their families when something goes wrong, and this should be fundamental for all staff. The proposals in this new legislation have greater scope than the existing statutory Duty of Candour in the NHS, with a focus on systemic institutional behaviour. It is also notable that these provisions of the Bill will apply to the whole of the UK, not just England and Wales. 5. Abolition of NHS England The NHS Modernisation Bill will legislate to integrate NHS England’s functions into the Department of Health and Social Care, as first announced last year.[16] While we are still waiting further detail of what this will look like in practice, the existing National Patient Safety Team at NHS England is likely to be impacted by these changes. This Team is currently responsible for owning various patient safety programmes and policies and issuing safety warnings and recommendations. As stated in our response to the 10 Year Health Plan for England, an area of concern for us remains the lack of significant capacity to intervene if necessary for the purposes of improvement at a national level. Alongside this, there is also currently no national body able to commission or develop solutions that all organisations can use and adapt to improve patient safety. If healthcare providers identify a systemic issue that needs to be addressed because it affects other organisations, there is no national organisation that has the role or capacity to act on this. Instead, providers are left to find local solutions to system-wide concerns without a vehicle for widespread dissemination and evaluation. We believe this gap places a serious limitation on the healthcare system’s ability to reduce avoidable harm. It does little to address the inconsistencies in care across the country, with multiple different responses and workarounds to system-wide problems with varying levels of success. It is also a significant missed opportunity if we fail to take learning gained from provider organisations and apply this nationally for improvement in a meaningful way. This is an issue we think should be considered and addressed in the future merger of NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care. 6. Changes to Integrated Care Boards Finally, the NHS Modernisation Bill will also include several changes for Integrated Care Boards (ICBs), including: Refine the membership of ICBs. Placing new requirements for mayoral nominees to be on ICBs. Confirming their role as strategic commissioners, by transferring responsibilities for all but the most specialised commissioning functions to ICBs. In a joint blog with the Advancing Quality Alliance (Aqua) earlier this year, we noted that there is huge opportunity for ICBs to drive a systemic approach to patient safety through their strategic commissioning responsibilities.[17] [18] [19] However, there is currently significant variation in ICBs involvement in safety management activities.[13] With the right support ICBs have the potential to develop an integrated and coordinated approach to safety, reflecting patient care pathways across systems and ensuring consistency and collaboration. We would hope to see this included in these changes considered in the provisions of the NHS Modernisation Bill, and in the forthcoming new NHS Quality Strategy. References Prime Minister’s Office. 10 Downing Street. Oral statement to Parliament: The King’s Speech 2026. 13 May 2026. Department of Health and Social Care. Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape. 7 July 2025. Patient Safety Learning. Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape: Patient Safety Learning‘s response. 15 July 2025. Macrae C. Failing to learn? The NHS is losing its capacity for system-wide safety investigation. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2025; 118(10). Health Service Journal. Merging watchdog into CQC will ‘destroy’ independence. 26 February 2026. Patient Safety Learning. Patient Safety Learning’s response to the NHS Staff Survey Results 2025. 13 March 2026. Martin G, O’Hara J. Hope over experience? Patient and staff voice in the NHS after the Dash review. 1 2025;390:r1514. Cox C. Is the patient voice fading? Reflections on patient safety in a changing NHS. Patient Safety Learning. 28 January 2026. Morris L, et al. The Kings Fund. The future of patient voice: learning from the Healthwatch model. 18 March 2026. Patient Safety Learning. Patient voice, safety and the NHS 10 Year Plan: Reflections from the Patient Safety Forum 2026. 23 March 2026. Prime Minister’s Office. 10 Downing Street. King’s Speech 2026: background briefing notes. 13 May 2026. Patient Safety Learning. 10 Year Health Plan: Patient Safety Learning’s response. 14 August 2025. The Kings Fund. The King’s Fund responds to the King’s Speech and the introduction of the NHS Modernisation Bill. 13 May 2026. Anonymous. The digitalising of patient records – why patients MUST be involved. Patient Safety Learning. 16 April 2024. House of Commons. Public Office (Accountability Bill), Session 2024-26. Last updated 5 May 2026. Department of Health and Social Care. World’s largest quango scrapped under reforms to put patients first. 13 March 2025. Patient Safety Learning and Aqua. Patient safety and the new NHS Quality Strategy. 25 February 2026. Aqua. What Should Safety Look Like at a System Level. 6 April 2023. Patient Safety Learning. The elephant in the room: Patient safety and integrated carer systems. 11 July 2023. Health Services Safety Investigations Body. Safety management: accountability across organisational boundaries. 13 February 2025.

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.

Parkinson’s is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. It can affect young or old, and in the UK, around 153,000 people are living with the condition. With population growth and ageing, this figure is estimated to increase by 20%, within the next ten years. At the moment, there is no cure for Parkinson’s, but medication plays a vital role in managing symptoms and preventing deterioration. People with Parkinson’s face a number of specific patient safety issues when accessing healthcare including communication difficulties and risks associated with medication delays. In this blog, Patient Safety Learning has pulled together 14 useful resources about Parkinson’s shared on the hub. They include guidance for patients and their families about hospital stays and medication, and awareness-raising resources for healthcare professionals about the patient safety issues people with Parkinson’s face. 1. Keeping patients with Parkinson’s safe in hospital: 4 key actions for staff Dr Rowan Wathes, Associate Director of the Parkinson's Excellence Network at Parkinson's UK, recommends four key actions that healthcare workers can take to improve safety for people with Parkinson’s while they are in hospital. 2. Parkinson's UK: Parkinson's Away-From-Home Kit This kit from the Parkinson's UK Excellence Network comes from 3 years of collaboration with people with Parkinson’s and carers to understand the challenges they face when going into hospital and how we can help. People with Parkinson’s can choose from a range of tools to create a kit that works for them. Every item is designed to support them, and those who care for them, to advocate for their Parkinson's medications to be administered on time, every time. 3. Nurses leading the way: enhancing Parkinson's care in nursing homes In this blog published by the Royal College of Nursing, Jean Almond, Programme Manager at Parkinson's UK, discusses improving the delivery of time critical Parkinson’s medication to care home residents. 4. Preparing to go into hospital – tips for people with Parkinson's and their carers In this blog, Laura Cockram, Head of Policy and Campaigning at Parkinson's UK, talks about how people with Parkinson’s can prepare their medication to go into hospital. 5. Time-critical Parkinson’s medication: the human cost of delays and mistakes In this blog, Joanne explains how delays to her mother’s time-critical medication in hospital led to her condition deteriorating. 6. Time critical medication guides for health professionals The Parkinson’s Excellence Network has produced three practical guides to support UK health professionals to deliver time critical Parkinson’s medication on time in hospital: a guide for NHS ward staff, a guide for hospital pharmacists and a swallowing guide for the nurse in charge and ward staff. 7. Electronic prescribing: how it can improve the delivery of time critical medications This resource describes how NHS Ayrshire & Arran hospitals improved their rates for administering patients' Parkinson's medications on time, sharing case studies and tips on how other hospitals might be able to replicate their successful e-prescribing system. 8. Improving the delivery of time critical medications at Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust A best practice case study showcasing a quality improvement project at Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. 9. Ask the expert: How to spot fake Parkinson’s medicines online Falsified, fake or counterfeit medicines are medicines disguising themselves as authentic, and they can pose significant health risks. This blog highlights the issue of counterfeit Parkinson's medications being sold illegally online. Mike Isles, Executive Director of the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacy in the EU describes their high prevalence and gives tips for people with Parkinson's on how to stay safe when buying medicines online. 10. My Parkinson's passport This tool from the Parkinson's Association of Ireland allows people with Parkinson's to record their essential medical information in an easy to access format, should they need assistance or medical treatment. 11. Parkinson's awareness: a 15-minute online presentation for ward staff This 15-minute training video by the Parkinson's Excellence Network pulls together the key symptoms and issues that can affect a person with Parkinson's and their care when admitted to a hospital ward. It aims to help ward staff understand the most important considerations when caring for people with Parkinson's. 12. Medication delays: A huge risk for inpatients with Parkinson’s This blog examines the serious health implications of delayed medication in people with Parkinson’s. It highlights evidence that this is a widespread safety issue and outlines the challenges, barriers and solutions to ensuring patients receive their medication on time. 13. Parkinson’s UK Tech Guide Parkinson’s UK created the Tech Guide so that people with Parkinson’s, and their families, friends and carers, can make the right decisions for themselves about all the devices and apps that claim to be able to help improve their quality of life. To do this, they provide trusted reviews based on the lived experience of people with Parkinson’s, and maintain a catalogue of the various products that are on the market. This is backed up with information about Parkinson’s and evidence-based articles that will help you decide what’s right for you, in your unique circumstances. 14. NHS Northumbria Healthcare: Improving the care in hospital for people with Parkinson’s In this blog, consultant geriatrician, Dr James Fisher, talks about a project at NHS Northumbria Healthcare to improve the experience of Parkinson’s patients by focusing on medication. Have your say Are you a healthcare professional who works with people with Parkinson’s? We would love to hear your insights and share resources you have developed. Do you have, or do you care for someone with Parkinson’s? Please share your experience of health and care services with us. We would love to hear from you! Comment below (register for free here first). Get in touch with us directly to share your insights.

Last month, Public Policy Projects hosted their annual Patient Safety Forum in partnership with Patient Safety Learning. Held at the Royal College of Surgeons of England in London, it was attended by senior healthcare leaders, patient safety experts, representatives from the HealthTech industry, frontline healthcare professionals and patients.  In this article, Patient Safety Learning reflects on one of the panel discussions—AI for patient safety: Innovation, assurance and strengthening communication. From AI-enabled ambient scribing tools that reduce the burden of administration, to predictive systems capable of detecting early warning signs before harm occurs, AI has significant potential to improve patient care and outcomes. Yet, alongside these benefits come risks—algorithmic errors, data bias, and challenges in maintaining trust, governance and oversight. At the Patient Safety Forum 2026 an expert panel was convened to discuss this topic, with the following members: Clive Flashman, Chief Digital Officer, Patient Safety Learning Dr Alison Cave, Chief Safety Officer, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Anil Mistry, AI Safety Lead, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust Dr Basil Bekdash, Clinical Safety Officer, Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust Aleksander Alski, Head of Region – USA, Canada and UK, Vasco Electronics Panellists had a lively discussion with each other and the audience about how to balance innovation with assurance, to ensure that the use of AI in healthcare enhances safety rather than undermines it. They spoke about how AI should be understood as a support tool for healthcare professionals—it provides information and removes burden but, ultimately, staff treat patients. In this blog we highlight several key topics that emerged from this debate. Importance of patient safety A key theme running throughout the panel’s discussion was the importance of patient safety being built into AI development at the outset. Clive Flashman from Patient Safety Learning reflected on this point, suggesting that too often this is seen as a compliance ‘tick box’ or treated as an afterthought. Speaking to digital innovators, his message was that “you need to think about this from the very start when you are conceptualising the product”. Panellists also recognised that putting safety at the centre of discussions around AI and healthcare means involving all stakeholders, not just the healthcare professionals using these technologies but suppliers too. Alexander Alski from Vasco Electronics emphasised the importance of this being an area of shared responsibility between suppliers and healthcare providers. Getting regulation right Alison Cave from the MHRA spoke about the ongoing work of the National Commission into the Regulation of AI. This Commission was established by the MHRA to review current regulations and provide recommendations for a new regulatory framework for AI in healthcare. It held a public call for evidence which Patient Safety Learning responded to earlier this year. Discussing how to approach future regulation, she highlighted the importance of ensuring that “the risk is associated with the decision, not the technology itself”. It was noted that in some cases there may be very complex pieces of software in use, but these may be making very low-risk decisions. Panellists underlined the importance of having a risk-proportionate regulatory framework to support safe innovation. Predicting future harm The potential to use AI to identify patient safety issues is understandably an area of significant interest. Last year the Department of Health and Social Care announced that it planned to develop a world-first artificial intelligence (AI) early warning system to automatically identify safety concerns across the NHS. Panellists were asked to consider what examples they had seen of AI moving from reacting to incidents, to predicting and preventing future harm. They spoke about the value of AI as a support tool for clinicians and more broadly how it might be used to identify emerging patient safety issues. Basil Bekdash from Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust spoke about work that had been trialled in this area, but noted that currently there have not been many examples where these have been proven on a significant scale, stating: “None of them have really quite got to the point where they're proven in widespread deployment and so I'm not going to predict that's going to happen in the next five years.” Tackling bias While an AI tool may be safe when properly implemented and used by a well-trained healthcare professional, it could be potentially dangerous if such training and support is absent. Panellists concurred that having appropriate training and tackling bias were issues of critical importance in ensuring the safety of AI in healthcare. In particularly they discussed risks presented by: Confirmation bias—healthcare professionals favouring AI outputs that align with their pre-existing view and overlooking signals that may challenge this. Automation bias—over-reliance on AI systems and accepting their recommendations without sufficient critical evaluation. Alison Cave from the MHRA said that part of the training should be ensuring that healthcare professionals understand the devices they are using and where there are trade-offs between sensitivity and a specificity. Basil Bekdash from Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust noted the importance of having in mind the different levels of digital competence of staff, stating that when designing AI systems: “It is best to test by using your least capable people who are the least digitally enabled and that's not a criticism that's just the reality of the normal spread of what people do, and their primary function is to look after patients.” Transparency and patient communication As use of AI grows in healthcare, it is vital that patients understand how this is being applied if they are to have confidence in its safety. Panellists discussed issues around how to inform patients when AI influences their care, particularly when it affects clinical judgments. Anil Mistry from Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust suggested that: “If the AI result is going to affect their patient’s care, and it's going to limit their access to finite resources like a waiting list or appointments or ICU beds, then absolutely have that sort of communication.” However, he also spoke about some of the challenges this raises; for example, if a patient asked about whether AI has been used in their care. In practice this could cover a very broad range of areas, from the use of ambient scribes to take notes to tools that analyse images from scans. Panellists indicated that transparency needed to be balanced and proportionate to both the risk and impact on individual care. Governance requirements AI healthcare technologies have significant scope to evolve and change over time. When they iterate rapidly (with new versions being released at regular intervals) it can be difficult for existing governance frameworks, designed for other types of medical devices, to keep up. Panellists discussed the importance of having flexibility to governance arrangements. There was the suggestion that lower risks tools (such as those in Class 1 for Medical Devices under the MHRA framework in the UK) should have greater flexibility, with higher levels of scrutiny reserved for decision-influencing tools. It was also made clear that any new regulation will need to carefully consider the level of ongoing evaluation that will be required to account for these systems evolving and changing over time. This may be much longer than for other medical devices and change at significant pace. One audience member commented that with these tools becoming increasingly complex, in the future “realistically there is going to be a need for an AI tool that assesses AI tools”. Panellists also considered how procurement processes could act as potential leverage mechanisms for AI technologies in healthcare. It was noted they offer the potential opportunity to embed the open standards we want to see being used by AI technologies in the earliest stages of their design, putting safety concerns at the centre of the product before it ever reaches patients. Improving the quality of data Data accuracy, completeness and representativeness is key to ensuring AI technologies work safely in health and care environments. Panellists noted that poor foundational data standards undermine AI model training and lead to unreliable outputs. Their discussion reflected that a significant proportion of time is often spent on data cleaning before even applying AI. Improving this would have wider benefits for research, operational efficiency and public healthcare. As we increase the use of AI health technologies, it is vital that we do not embed existing health inequalities. Following on from comments in an earlier session from Professor Bola Owolabi from the Care Quality Commission, Alison Cave from the MHRA noted a “perennial challenge in all of our areas is to ensure that the training data is representative”. Training data for AI systems must be representative of diverse populations and care settings. Sharing insights from the frontline If healthcare organisations, professionals and suppliers are to share responsibility for the safe implementation of AI technologies in healthcare, this must go hand in hand with shared learning. Panellists discussed the need for sustained and transparent feedback loops between suppliers, regulators and healthcare organisations. On this point an audience member asked: “How do we ensure our learning keeps pace so that existing insight from frontline teams that really know the business can optimally inform the evolution of products, but without stifling the pace?” Panellists highlighted the absence of standardised mechanisms for frontline staff to provide real-time, structured feedback to AI suppliers on safety issues. One proposed suggestion to this was the potential to mandate native feedback functionality within AI health technologies. This would mean that feedback mechanisms are built directly into the AI tool’s user interface and workflow, allowing those using them to provide input about the AI’s output without leaving the system. Find out more about the Patient Safety Forum 2026 You can read more about different discussions and panel sessions at this year’s event in the below: Patient voice, safety and the NHS 10 Year Plan: Reflections from the Patient Safety Forum 2026 Safe systems, safe cultures: reflections from the Patient Safety Forum 2026

The Cheshire and Merseyside Cancer Alliance (CMCA) were finalists in the 'Partnership Working to Improve the Experience' category at the Patient Experience Network 2025 Awards. In this blog, CMCA explain how patient stories are deliberately integrated into their governance, learning and pathway redesign, and how this approach transforms storytelling from passive listening into active improvement. Beyond data—listening to lived experience Modern healthcare systems are built on measurement. We track waiting times, referral-to-treatment targets, survival rates and performance indicators. These metrics are essential and tell us whether services are efficient, timely and clinically effective. Yet some of the most powerful drivers of improvement do not originate from a dashboard—they begin with a story. Cancer care is one of the most complex, emotionally charged and high-risk areas of healthcare delivery. A single cancer journey may span primary care, diagnostic services, multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions, surgery, treatment, supportive services and palliative or end-of-life care. Along the way, patients navigate multiple appointments, handovers between teams and often life-altering decisions. Delays in diagnosis, unclear communication, fragmented pathways and missed escalation opportunities can have profound consequences. A cancer patient’s story does more than recount a sequence of clinical events. It reveals what mattered most to them in moments of uncertainty. It highlights where systems worked well—and where they did not. It brings into focus inequalities, access barriers and communication gaps. The question is no longer whether patient stories matter. It is how we use them responsibly, consistently and systematically to improve care. From patient story to structured improvement To create measurable impact, storytelling must move beyond powerful listening sessions. It must be embedded into structured quality improvement and safety culture. At CMCA, patient stories are deliberately integrated into governance, learning and pathway redesign. Stories are shared across meetings, events, training sessions and improvement programmes. Rather than treating stories as standalone testimonies, they are used to strengthen systems thinking. Each story prompts structured reflection: where were the faults in the pathway? what safety nets failed or were absent? how did workload pressures or process design contribute? were there missed opportunities to escalate concerns and could this scenario happen in our service today? This approach transforms storytelling from passive listening into active improvement. When patients see that their lived experience leads to tangible change, storytelling becomes partnership—not performance. On 23 May 2022, CMCA invited its first patient storyteller to a team away day. Hearing a personal cancer journey directly from someone with lived experience had a profound effect. It shifted conversations from abstract targets to real human impact. Since then, colleagues across the Alliance have increasingly invited patients to share their experiences to inform pathway redesign and programme development. Between 2022 and 2025, 73 patient stories have been shared. As a result, six significant changes have been implemented. These include improvements to the accessibility of diagnostic testing and the development of a patient engagement checklist for the pathology transformation programme. Other impacts are less immediately measurable but equally meaningful. Stories often leave a lasting impression, influencing how leaders think about service design long after the meeting ends. Empowerment through partnership For many patients, sharing their story is both courageous and empowering. Storytellers remain fully in control of what they share and how they share it. CMCA offers multiple formats—written narratives, audio recordings, video submissions or in-person presentations—ensuring that individuals can choose what feels safest and most authentic. One storyteller reflected: “Oh my word, it's always so amazing to know people hear what I say and take it in.” Another, a CMCA Patient Representative, shared: “Sharing a patient journey can feel daunting at first, but the team at CMCA have been empathetic, kind and supported me every step of the way. Knowing that my words can help others in some way gives me hope and helps me to heal.” Storytelling has also opened further opportunities for patient involvement. Some storytellers have joined project groups, contributed to service redesign or been connected to additional support services. What begins as a story can evolve into ongoing collaboration. Embedding the patient voice in leadership and education The influence of storytelling at CMCA has expanded beyond frontline teams. Patient stories are now a standing agenda item at Board and Diagnostics Board meetings, ensuring that strategic decisions remain grounded in lived reality. At one recent Board meeting, a storyteller who is both a wheelchair user and a cancer patient described the physical and systemic barriers they encountered across their pathway. The account was powerful and specific. It prompted Board members to commission a system-wide accessibility review—a direct example of lived experience shaping strategic action. Patient stories have also informed education. They became the foundation of the 123 Health Inequalities training programme, a CPD-accredited e-learning course developed by the CMCA Health Inequalities and Patient Experience team. Built from both staff and patient voice, the programme uses real experiences to illustrate how inequality manifests in everyday practice—and what professionals can do differently. As Jenny Brazier, Patient Engagement Senior Project Officer at CMCA, explains: “Listening to and acting on lived experience teaches us how to deliver better care and improve services for others. When we truly understand what matters most to patients and their loved ones, we create more equitable, person-centred care.” Conclusion: listening as a safety intervention In cancer care, success is often measured through survival rates, treatment standards and clinical outcomes. These are vital—but they do not tell the whole story. Safety is also about how patients experience their care. Did they feel heard? Were things explained clearly? Were they treated with dignity and supported during an incredibly vulnerable time? Patient stories are not just emotional accounts. They are practical tools for improvement. They help uncover risks that data may miss, reveal gaps in communication or coordination, and highlight where systems create barriers or inequalities. When listening is built into leadership and improvement work, it becomes a powerful safety intervention—helping ensure cancer care is not only effective, but truly centred on those who receive it. The Cheshire and Merseyside Cancer Alliance (CMCA) team. Further reading on the hub: How authentic patient stories can shift systems thinking and improve care Digital storytelling: Learning opportunity or reputational risk? Catching cancer early: what more can we do as GPs?

This webinar will bring together global experts and patient champions to explore how meaningful engagement of children, parents, and families can improve safety in newborn and child care and help reduce avoidable harm. The webinar will focus on: Why engaging children, parents, and families is essential for safe newborn and child care How Goal 1 can be implemented in practice at the point of care What health care workers, leaders, managers, and policymakers can do to enable meaningful engagement This webinar series is co-hosted by the World Health Organization, the International Pediatric Association, and the Child Health Task Force. One webinar will be organized each month, with each session focusing on a specific World Patient Safety Day Goal. Register

In this blog, Aurora Todisco, hub Topic leader for Patient Engagement, shares her advice (and a handy ‘mini-guide’) to help people make the shift from consultation to co-production.  Moving beyond asking for views Consultation is often the default approach to involvement: organisations ask for feedback, gather opinions, and then make decisions internally. While consultation has value, it is not the same as co‑production. The attached mini‑guide, From Consultation to Co‑Production: A Beginner’s Guide, is designed to help teams understand the difference – and take realistic steps towards shared decision‑making. Mini guide - From_Consultation_to_Co-Production_A_Beginners_Guide.docx Understanding the spectrum Involvement exists on a spectrum, from one‑off consultations through to full co‑production. Co‑production means working with people with lived experience as partners, not simply as contributors. This blog and the attached mini-guide, breaks the concept down into manageable steps, recognising that co‑production doesn’t happen overnight. Starting small and building trust One of the biggest barriers to co‑production is the belief that you have to do everything at once. In reality, co‑production often starts with: Small joint projects Clear, shared goals Honest conversations about roles and constraints By starting small, teams can build confidence, trust and shared ways of working over time. What good co‑production looks like The mini-guide focuses on a few core principles: Sharing decision‑making power Being transparent about what can and can’t change Documenting decisions and learning Investing in relationships through regular communication These practices help move involvement from a transactional activity to a collaborative partnership. Why this guide now? Many organisations talk about co‑production, but fewer feel confident putting it into practice. This beginner’s guide offers a realistic, supportive entry point – helping teams move forward without feeling overwhelmed.

Last month, Public Policy Projects hosted their annual Patient Safety Forum in partnership with Patient Safety Learning. Held at the Royal College of Surgeons of England in London, it was attended by senior healthcare leaders, patient safety experts, representatives from the HealthTech industry, frontline healthcare professionals and patients.  In this article Patient Safety Learning reflects on a discussion at this event between a panel of experts to discuss the ambitions set out in the NHS 10 Year Plan and what it means for patient voice and patient safety. At the heart of the discussion was a simple but important question: are patients truly at the centre of the system, and how do we make sure their voices lead to meaningful change? A positive shift towards patient choice The NHS 10 Year Plan places strong emphasis on patient choice, agency and feedback. These commitments were widely welcomed by the panel. For many working in patient safety, the idea that patients should be central to their own care has long been a core principle. Giving patients greater choice and making it easier for them to share their experiences is a positive step. It reflects years of calls for healthcare systems to listen more carefully to the people they serve. However, some participants noted that, despite the focus on patient voice, patients themselves were not included on the panel. While there were patients on other panels during the conference, there was surprise that a patient safety partner or patient safety advocate had not been invited to contribute directly to the discussion. This absence highlighted a key tension: even when patient perspectives are recognised as vital, they are not always embedded in the decision-making or discussion processes themselves. However, while the overall direction of travel is encouraging, the discussion also highlighted areas where the 10 Year Plan could go further. What’s missing from the conversation? Although the plan speaks clearly about choice and feedback, it is less explicit about patient innovation, co-production and the experiences of harmed patients. These are crucial areas in patient safety. Patients and families often hold unique insights into where care has gone wrong and how it could be improved. When those perspectives are included early in improvement work, they can shape safer systems. Panel members felt these aspects need clearer recognition if the ambition of truly patient-centred care is to be realised. Trust, independence and the Dash Review The conversation also touched on Dr Penny Dash’s review of the patient safety landscape, published last year, shortly after the 10 Year Plan. The review included a number of proposals with direct implications for the visibility and independence of patient voice at a national and system level. This included plans to bring patient feedback mechanisms “in house” within a new patient experience directorate and moving functions of Local Healthwatch into Integrated Care Boards and providers. While this may improve efficiency, it raised concerns about independence and trust. If feedback systems are managed solely by the organisations being complained about, patients and families may feel less safe raising concerns. Independence plays an important role in ensuring transparency and confidence that concerns will be taken seriously. Maintaining that trust is essential if feedback is to remain open, honest and useful for learning. Are patient experiences just “stories”? Language became an unexpected but important theme. Patient experiences are often referred to as “stories”. While this language can humanise healthcare and highlight the real impact of harm, the panel reflected on whether the term always serves patients well. Referring to experiences as stories can unintentionally imply anecdote rather than evidence, potentially diminishing the seriousness of harm. The panel was asked a simple question: which patient story has actually led to meaningful change? When change only happens after escalation Paula Sussex, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), shared an example of a complaint that reached Ombudsman level. In that case, input from both the patient and the organisation led to significant improvements. It demonstrated the power of the patient voice when it is truly heard. But it also raised an uncomfortable question: should change only happen once a complaint escalates to that level? If meaningful improvements rely on escalation, it suggests earlier opportunities to listen and learn may have been missed. A similar example was shared by Norma Findley from Seating Matters, who described how a large legal claim had acted as the catalyst for organisational change. Again, the discussion returned to the same point: should it really require litigation and serious harm before learning happens? Too often, patient voices seem to gain traction only once they enter a formal or adversarial process. A more proactive model in maternity safety Louise Pye from the Maternity and Newborn Safety Investigations (MNSI) programme highlighted a different approach through their work around HEART and HEWS: HEWS: Health Equity Warning Score – this has been developed to classify a person’s risk of experiencing barriers to health equity. HEART: Health Equity Assessment and Resource Toolkit – this goes beyond HEWS and provides prompts and questions in relation to a person’s protected equality characteristics and social determinants. By using HEART and HEWS, MNSI aim to ensure that their investigators make safety recommendations and prompts to NHS trusts that focus on health equity to ensure that they consider personalisation in all areas of maternity care. Here, engagement with families is built into the investigative process from the beginning, rather than being added afterwards. Louise suggested that healthcare needs a clear and consistent model for working with patients and families — one that is embedded, compassionate and applied across organisations. The importance of co-production Chris Graham from Picker emphasised the value of co-production and involving people with lived experience directly in improvement work. Patient feedback can take many forms: Structured feedback Solicited surveys Systematic data collection Each serves a different purpose. For example, feedback collected for regulatory assurance may be very different from feedback intended to inform service redesign. Being clear about why feedback is collected makes it far more useful. Complaints as a gift Returning to the role of complaints, Paula Sussex explained how the PHSO analyses complaint data to identify recurring themes and systemic issues across healthcare. She encouraged organisations to view complaints as a gift, an opportunity to learn and improve rather than something to fear. For this to work, however, organisations must demonstrate visible change as a result of what they hear. Listening alone is not enough. Digital data and the risk of losing the human story The panel also explored the growing role of digital analysis. Large datasets can now be analysed quickly to identify patterns in patient feedback at scale. This can be powerful, helping organisations spot trends that might otherwise be missed. But there is also a risk. When experiences are reduced to coded data points, the emotional and relational context behind them can disappear. The challenge is to balance efficient analysis with preserving the human meaning behind patient experiences. Learning from social media Norma Findley also highlighted the potential value of social media communities, such as Facebook groups, as a source of patient feedback. Increasingly, patients are sharing experiences outside formal healthcare channels. These spaces can offer valuable insights into patient concerns, expectations and emerging issues. Used responsibly, they could help organisations become more responsive and transparent. From listening to action Across the discussion, one message came through clearly: Patients want to be heard — but more importantly, they want to see change. Acknowledging feedback is important, but what builds trust is demonstrable improvement. Paula Sussex also noted that the statutory duty of candour, while well established in policy, is not yet fully embedded in practice. This reflects a broader challenge in healthcare: the gap between policy intentions and lived experience. Key themes from the discussion Several key themes emerged from the forum: Escalation as a catalyst for change - Improvements often occur only once complaints reach Ombudsman level or result in legal action. Independence and trust - Bringing feedback systems in-house could risk reducing perceived independence. Language and framing - The term “patient stories” can humanise experiences but may unintentionally minimise harm. Data versus narrative - Digital analysis offers scale but risks losing context if not balanced with human insight. Co-production and lived experience - Genuine partnership requires structured engagement with patients and families. From feedback to action - Patients want to see tangible improvement, not acknowledgement alone. The implementation gap - Commitments such as the duty of candour are still not consistently realised in practice. A shared commitment to doing better What stood out most from the discussion was a shared commitment to strengthening patient voice and patient safety. The conversation recognised that progress has been made, but also that structural, cultural and linguistic shifts are still needed. Rather than becoming influential only once harm has escalated into a formal complaint or legal process, the patient voice is most powerful when it is: embedded early in improvement work treated with respect and seriousness analysed thoughtfully and linked directly to visible change. If the ambitions of the NHS 10 Year Plan are to be realised, ensuring that patient voices lead to meaningful improvement will remain one of the most important challenges ahead. Share your insights Have you seen the impact of the patient voice in patient safety? Share your thoughts on this article and the issues raised by commenting below (sign up first for free). Or you can email our editorial team at [email protected]. Find out more about the Patient Safety Forum 2026 You can read more about different discussions and panel sessions at this year’s event in the below: Designing AI with patient safety at its core: Reflections from the Patient Safety Forum 2026 Safe systems, safe cultures: reflections from the Patient Safety Forum 2026