Search the hub
Showing results for tags 'Private sector'.
Found 282 results
-
News Article
NHS spends record £241m outsourcing scan analysis to private firms
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
The NHS is paying private firms record sums to analyse diagnostic scans because hospitals are too busy and understaffed to do the work themselves, research has revealed. The amount being spent on outsourced the interpretation of CT and MRI scans is “spiralling out of control” and reflects a short-sighted failure to train enough doctors, ministers are being told. Scans are vital for diagnosing diseases such as cancer and for monitoring patients’ responses to treatment, so they need to be done quickly. Many hospitals, however, rely on non-NHS health companies reading some scans to ensure they get the results promptly. NHS trusts and health boards across the UK gave £241m to private firms to undertake such work last year. As demand increases, spending has doubled in five years from £120min 2021 and tripled from the £81m spent in 2018. The Royal College of Radiologists (RCR), which collated the figures in its annual workforce census, said health service spending on private scan reading was “ballooning”. The NHS-wide shortage of radiologists has left hospitals with too little capacity to read all scans, meaning the service is “haemorrhaging” cash to independent firms, it said. The RCR also raised concerns that the analysis done by private firms was sometimes so poor that NHS radiologists had to read scans again, raising questions about the benefit of outsourcing. Read full story Source: The Guardian, 25 May 2026 -
News Article
Growing private services creating ‘regulatory gap’ , claims watchdog
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
There is a growing “regulatory gap” around several NHS services where private provision has grown rapidly, the Parliamentary watchdog has told HSJ. Paula Sussex, who became the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in August, said she received a large number of concerns about ADHD and autism services, and provision of wheelchairs. In relation to neurodiversity diagnosis, there has been rapid growth in NHS-funded and self-funded independent sector provision responding to growing demand, alongside an absence of agreed standards, qualifications, and training. As a result, Ms Sussex often receives complaints that other services are refusing to recognise and act on the diagnoses, she said. Wheelchair services, meanwhile, are often privately provided through block contracts and subject to regular concerns about long waits for equipment and repairs. These services are not registered with the Care Quality Commission as they are not counted as a healthcare service. Ms Sussex said private provision – which was patchy, sometimes poor quality and not properly regulated – was “driving more costs into the system”. She suggested the Department of Health and Social Care should examine “who is going to pick up” these “regulatory gaps”. She added: “That would give more clarity to [integrated care boards] and providers to say: ‘Is it okay to accept this diagnosis?’ or for them to know there is a body overseeing private sector provision.” Read full story (paywalled) Source: HSJ, 22 May 2026 -
Content ArticleFrom 6 April 2026, Section 51 of the Mental Health Act 2025 has come into force, and if you are an independent provider of NHS-funded mental health inpatient services or s.117 aftercare services, this change directly affects you. Independent providers delivering these services are now definitively classified as "public authorities" for the purposes the Human Rights Act 1998. That means clearer legal obligations, greater scrutiny from the CQC, and direct exposure to human rights claims and judicial review challenges. Are your policies, governance frameworks and insurance arrangements ready? Read this brief from Bevan Brittan to understand what has changed, what it means for your organisation, and the steps you, and your commissioners, should be taking now.
-
News ArticlePrivate firms providing services to the NHS including healthcare and consultancy have made £1.6bn in profits over the last two years, research reveals. The findings – on the basis of contracts worth £12bn – have prompted claims of “scandalous” profiteering, concern that the health service is being “taken for a ride” and calls for ministers to impose a cap on maximum profit levels. The £1.6bn in profits made in 2023-24 and 2024-25 would have been enough to pay for 9,178 doctors or 19,428 nurses during that time, according to the Centre for Health and the Public Interest. Its findings are based on analysis of NHS contracts in England, with 760 private firms providing services including diagnostic tests such as CT scans to patients, and treatments including hip and knee replacements, and for skin problems and mental health conditions. Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokesperson, said: “Private companies making super-profits from our NHS is an unacceptable waste. This money should be going on frontline services, not fattened profits for big corporations. “The NHS should be able to benefit from economies of scale and use its power as a major buyer to drive down prices. I’m afraid it looks like our health service is being taken for a ride.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 13 April 2026
-
News Article
Alarm in health service over Palantir staff being given NHS email accounts
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Health service staff have expressed alarm that engineers working for controversial tech company Palantir have been given NHS email accounts. Employees using NHS.net email accounts have access to a directory with the contact details of up 1.5 million staff. Sources believe Palantir staff were granted the same access. Palantir staff working on the introduction of its Federated Data Platform (FDP) for NHS England have also been given access to NHS SharePoint filesharing systems and internal Microsoft Teams groups. Hospital trusts and integrated care boards across the country are being encouraged to adopt FDP, which Palantir won a £300m contract to provide in 2023. NHS England says FDP allows NHS organisations to connect patient records historically held across different systems, allowing staff to manage waiting lists, allocate appointments, speed up diagnoses and personalise treatment more effectively. It is part of the government’s plan to “reinvent the NHS” through “radical shifts”, including moving systems from “analogue to digital”. The use of NHS email accounts and internal systems by private contractors is not unusual. However, Palantir’s association with AI-powered surveillance and war technology has made some staff, patients and human rights campaigners question the ethics and implications of allowing the spy-tech company to become embedded in the UK public sector. Rory Gibson, a resident doctor, said: “I – as a doctor – absolutely don’t want my personal email and number to be accessible to someone who works for Palantir on the NHS, and might next month be working on systems for drone strikes. NHS staff have not consented to sharing their email addresses with Palantir staff.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 8 April 2026 -
News Article
Medicines watchdog to investigate UK peptide clinics over health claims
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
The medicines regulator is investigating whether UK clinics are breaking the law by making claims about the benefits of unregulated, experimental peptide therapies, the Guardian can reveal. Interest in experimental peptides has boomed in recent years. The substances are delivered by injection and are touted by sellers, influencers and even some medics as aiding everything from anti-ageing to recovery from injury. There is little scientific evidence to support such health and wellness claims in humans. Where studies have been carried out, most are in animals or cells. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has said clinics are not permitted to make medicinal claims for the peptide treatments offered by their service. An MHRA spokesperson said: “If clinics offering peptide injections make medicinal claims for those treatments, the products will be considered medicines and subject to regulation under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. “The MHRA will take action against clinics which are identified as breaching the legal requirements.” However, a Guardian investigation has found a number of clinics operating in the UK offering a variety of unregulated, experimental peptides and making a host of claims about their benefits on their websites. These include approved prescription weight-loss medications based on synthetic peptides that mimic natural hormones, such as semaglutide and tirzepatide, found in weight loss drugs such as Wegovy and Mounjaro respectively. But many other peptides on the market have not undergone the strict regulatory processing that those used in medications have undergone, and remain experimental. Read full story Source: The Guardian, 4 April 2026 -
News ArticleOliver Robinson felt he had exhausted conventional therapies when he left the Priory, a private mental health facility where he was treated for depression and addiction between 2019 and 2022. Initially he found relief from a new kind of prescription elsewhere. But by the time he took his own life in November 2023, aged 34, his family believe his medicine was making him worse. In January, an inquest concluded that Robinson’s prescription for medicinal cannabis had “probably contributed to his death”. Catherine McKenna, the coroner for Manchester North, also ruled that his continued use of the prescription, first issued to him in May 2022 by Curaleaf Clinic, a private cannabis provider, “acted as an obstacle” to him receiving appropriate psychiatric and addiction care. His family understand this to be the first ruling of its kind. Now, Oliver’s brother, Alexander Robinson, is launching a campaign for tighter controls on UK private cannabis clinics, including a ban on prescribing to patients with serious mental illness, and greater oversight of a rapidly expanding industry. Alexander worries that others in Oliver’s position could be harmed by accessing medicinal cannabis. “If things do not change he is not going to be the last,” he said. The NHS typically prescribes only a small number of licensed CBMPs – those approved by the medicines regulator – for conditions such as severe epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and chemotherapy-related pain. Legally, specialist doctors can prescribe cannabis-based medicines, including unlicensed products, in NHS and private settings where they judge it clinically appropriate. According to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the healthcare regulator that oversees private cannabis clinics, most products prescribed privately are unlicensed, meaning they have not been approved by the medicines regulator. Freedom of information data from NHS Business Services Authority showed there were 659,293 unlicensed cannabis products privately prescribed in 2024, more than double the 282,920 issued in 2023. About 80,000 people in the UK are thought to be in receipt of a private prescription. But there is limited evidence that cannabis is a suitable treatment for depression. Read full story Source: The Guardian, 31 March 2026
-
News Article
‘Only two weeks of stock’ at key supplier after Iran-linked cyber attack
Mark Hughes posted a news article in News
NHS England believes there is only two weeks’ stock of crucial surgical equipment and other products following an Iran-linked cyber-attack on a major medical technology supplier. The centre is urgently working to understand the actual extent of supplies currently held by trusts and the potential risks to patient safety of the supply disruption. Read full article (paywalled). Source: Health Service Journal, 19 March 2026 -
Content ArticleThis report looks at the past three years since the introduction of the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) and its application in the independent sector. It explains how the Independent Healthcare Providers Network has been supporting its members to implement PSIRF and outlines key learnings that have emerged from this.
-
News Article
Fears of two-tier health system as more turn to private care, says watchdog
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
A two-tier health system is emerging with people increasingly paying for tests and treatments on the private sector to beat NHS waits, a patient watchdog is warning. Healthwatch England said feedback from patients combined with polling suggested use of the private sector is on the rise, with long NHS waits said to be a key factor. Private sector providers said alongside rises in people paying for treatment, some were also using the private sector to get scans and tests done before returning to the NHS, with their results, in a bid to get seen quicker. The government said it is making improvements, adding it is determined to reduce the delays that meant some felt the need to pay fore care. The survey of nearly 2,600 people in England found 16% of people had used the private sector in the past year, up from 9% two years previously. Four in 10 of those that had paid for care cited long NHS waits. Healthwatch England, which also analysed 390,000 pieces of feedback from the public over the past three years to draw up its conclusions, said the government had to do more to improve waiting times. It said the NHS should also provide more information to patients while they wait, to reassure them about when they might be seen, as well as helping them manage any symptoms. Currently nearly four in 10 people wait longer than the target time of 18 weeks for hospital treatment. Figures from the Private Healthcare Information Network show nearly 950,000 operations and treatments were carried out in the private sector last year in the UK. Read full story Source: BBC News, 16 March 2026 -
News Article
Iran-linked attack hits trusts’ supplies
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
At least two trusts have declared incidents after a cyber attack on a key supplier, HSJ understands. An Iran-linked group appears to have claimed responsibility for the attack on medical device supplier Stryker, saying it was a response to a bombing that killed dozens of children in the town of Minab. The US firm was attacked on Wednesday evening and local NHS procurement teams spent Thursday determining what the impact would be on trusts that buy orthopaedic implants, defibrillators, ambulance trolleys and other products from the company. Sources at two acute trusts confirmed they had declared incidents due to the supply concerns, but they did not want to be identified. So far trusts have been able to obtain equipment needed urgently from elsewhere after implementing their business continuity plans. National NHS bodies have set up an incident team to manage supply disruption, but have not declared a national critical incident. The company, whose UK and Ireland branches turned over nearly £500m sales last year, said the incident had “caused disruptions to order processing, manufacturing and shipping”. Stryker said the disruption stems from a cybersecurity attack targeting its Microsoft environment but that it has no indication of ransomware or malware and believes the incident has been contained. The American Hospital Association said it has not identified any direct disruptions to U.S. hospital operations. John Riggi, the AHA’s national adviser for cybersecurity and risk, told Becker’s on the 12 March the organisation is actively exchanging information with hospitals and the federal government as the situation develops. Read full story (paywalled) Source: HSJ, 13 March 2026 -
News Article
Rogue cosmetic clinics fake credibility with Harley Street pop-ups
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Harley Street is being used by rogue practitioners to establish pop-up cosmetic treatment clinics to trick patients into thinking they are credible, a professional standards body has revealed. Complaints about unqualified individuals carrying out procedures at temporary offices on the Marylebone street, renowned as a centre for plastic surgery, have increased from 18 to 118 in the last five years. The figures have been released by Save Face, a government-approved register of accredited aesthetic practitioners that also offers support to people who have undergone botched procedures. Ashton Collins, director of Save Face, said her organisation has seen a sharp rise in people setting up pop-up clinics on Harley Street to acquire a veneer of respectability despite having no qualifications to carry out cosmetic treatments. She explained that these treatments ranged from Botox and fillers to more dangerous procedures such as non-surgical Brazilian butt lifts (BBLs). The rogue services are typically being advertised through social media sites such as Instagram and TikTok at bargain prices to attract clients, she added. But in the event that treatments are botched, victims then discover their practitioner is not permanently located on Harley Street and they have nowhere to go to seek corrective procedures or financial compensation. Read full story (paywalled) Source: The Times, 9 March 2026 -
News Article
Almost a third of people in England use private dentists amid NHS dental crisis
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Almost a third of people in England now use private dentistry, with a sharp rise in the number of poorer households forced to pay for fillings and extractions. The scarcity of NHS care means the proportion of people turning to private dental services jumped from 22% in 2023 to 32% late last year, the health service’s patient watchdog found. The reliance on paid-for treatment is so significant that dental care is becoming a costly “one tier” – private-only – service for more and more people, Healthwatch England is warning. It is concerned that the percentage of people who describe themselves as struggling financially that have used private dentistry has almost doubled in recent years from 14% to 27%. “Our findings are a warning that for some people there’s only one-tier dental care – private,” said Rebecca Curtayne, Healthwatch England’s acting head of policy, public affairs and research. “It’s the most vulnerable people in our society who bear the brunt of the ongoing shortage of NHS dental appointments. “Too many people on low income are being forced into private care they struggle to afford, or are going without treatment altogether. The system is failing those who need it most.” The big shift to private dental care showed NHS dentistry “exists in name only for many people”, the Patients Association said. “This report is yet further damning evidence on the state of NHS dentistry and this double penalty for people on low incomes demonstrates a systemic failure with real human consequences,” said Rachel Power, the association’s chief executive. “This isn’t just about the cost of dentistry. The lack of affordable dental care harms physical health, leaves people in ongoing, sometimes agonising, pain, and can take a heavy toll on mental and emotional wellbeing.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 9 March 2026 -
News Article
Dentists return £900m for not seeing NHS patients
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Dentists in England are returning hundreds of millions of pounds a year to the government for unfulfilled NHS care, the BBC has learnt. Over the last two years, more than £900m has been handed back - £1 out of every £7 they have been paid - as dentists instead prioritise private work. The findings help explain why despite record sums being set aside for NHS dentistry, so many patients are struggling to get one - more than a fifth of people report not being able to access care when they need it. The government said improvements were being made this year and any money returned was reinvested into services. Nikita Jenkins, 27, from Cornwall, is one of millions of people who has struggled to access NHS dental care. She has not seen one for 14 years and has been forced to pay privately for her two young daughters to get treatment as she was told waiting lists locally were seven years long. "I tried every dentist in and around my area, but it was near impossible. "We were waiting and, in the end, I felt like we had no choice but to take the jump and pay to go private, to ensure that our children had the right health care." "Dentistry feels like a luxury, not a necessity, because it's just so inaccessible, which shouldn't be the case - especially for children," she told the BBC. Read full story Source: BBC News, 5 March 2026 -
News Article
‘Boys’ club’ shutting women out of private hospitals
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Just 6% of surgeons in private hospitals are women, says a report warning that a “private boys’ club” culture stops talented female doctors from getting work. Research by the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS) found that for some specialties, such as orthopaedics, independent hospitals employ more male doctors than they do women. Overall, only 488 of 7,934 surgeons at the country’s biggest private hospital chains are women — substantially lower than the proportion of female surgeons in the NHS. More than half of the UK’s doctors are women, but surgery has traditionally been male-dominated and a series of reports in recent years warned of a culture of sexism and harassment. Professor Felicity Meyer, a consultant vascular surgeon and chair of the Women in Surgery forum at RCS England, said: “The independent sector now delivers a growing share of surgical care, yet women remain strikingly underrepresented within its surgical workforce. “RCS England’s own work has repeatedly shown that this is not just an issue of fairness, but one that affects the resilience, safety and sustainability of the profession as a whole and ultimately impacts patient safety." Read full story (paywalled) Source: The Times, 1 March 2026 -
Content Article
Patient safety in ophthalmology depends on the reliability of diagnostic information that informs clinical decisions. Within independent providers delivering NHS-contracted care, ophthalmic technicians undertake a wide range of physiological and psychophysical assessments, from advanced imagining and functional testing to preoperative measurements that shape condition management and surgical planning. This article explores diagnostics as an often unseen safety checkpoint. It reflects on how structured verification processes, clear escalation pathways and defined accountability within diagnostic teams strengthen system reliability. Viewing diagnostics through a patient safety lens highlights how safe care is sustained through multidisciplinary collaboration and robust system design rather than individual vigilance alone. The NHS increasingly delivers care through a mixed model in which independent providers undertake NHS-funded surgical pathways. This model can increase capacity and reduce waiting times. However, patient safety does not transfer automatically with contracts. It depends on robust systems, clear standards and well-prepared people. In ophthalmology, safety begins long before the surgeon enters the operating theatre. It begins in diagnostics with ophthalmic technicians (predominantly). Preoperative imaging, biometry, visual field testing and other screening inform surgical planning and intraocular lens power selection. National guidance from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists emphasises the importance of accurate biometry and appropriate preoperative assessment in reducing refractive surprise and avoidable harm.[1] When diagnostic governance is strong, risk is mitigated early in the pathway. When it is inconsistent, vulnerabilities may remain undetected. Diagnostic reliability as a safety principle Patient safety literature consistently demonstrates that harm in healthcare often arises not from single catastrophic failures but from accumulations of small system weaknesses.[2] In high volume cataract and glaucoma services, diagnostic processes operate under significant throughput pressure. In that environment, the reliability of measurement systems matters. Examples may include: Failure to recognise poor fixation during biometry. Acceptance of inconsistent keratometry readings without repeat measurement. Inadequate review of visual field reliability indices. Limited escalation of ambiguous imaging findings. Individually these may appear minor. Collectively they influence surgical accuracy and long term outcomes. This is not solely an ophthalmic technician issue. It is a system reliability issue. The role of ophthalmic technicians within the safety system Ophthalmic technicians working in both NHS trusts and independent providers frequently undertake (this is not an exhaustive list): Optical coherence tomography acquisition. Biometry measurement. Visual field testing. Corneal topography. Ultrasonography. Fundus photography. Specular microscopy. Data preparation for clinical decision making. The General Medical Council and NHS England both emphasise that safe delegation requires appropriate training, supervision and clarity of accountability.[3] Where ophthalmic technicians are appropriately trained and supported, structured approaches such as second checker systems, defined escalation thresholds and documented quality standards can strengthen safety by reducing single point failure risk. These systems align with wider patient safety principles embedded within the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF), which emphasises learning, system design and proactive risk reduction rather than individual blame.[4] Independent provider pathways and shared standards Independent providers delivering NHS care are subject to the same Care Quality Commission expectations regarding safety, governance and quality assurance.[5] Patients rightly expect consistent standards regardless of setting. Diagnostic governance in this context should include: Clear standard operating procedures aligned with national guidance. Documented competency frameworks. Regular audit of refractive outcomes and measurement consistency. Structured escalation pathways. Ongoing professional development. These measures support both clinicians and ophthalmic technicians. They strengthen the entire pathway. Capability before expectation Across healthcare there has been expansion of non-medical roles to address workforce pressures. The Health and Social Care Committee has highlighted that role expansion must be matched with training, supervision and system design to protect patient safety.[6] In ophthalmology, ophthalmic technician-led diagnostic services can improve efficiency and access. However, safe expansion depends on: Defined scope of practice. Clear supervision structures. Time for skill consolidation. Access to continuing professional development. Inclusion in governance discussions. When expectation outpaces preparation, risk increases. When preparation is prioritised, safety improves. Prevented harm is rarely visible A repeated scan due to inconsistent signal. A paused surgical listing due to anomalous measurements. An escalated concern about unreliable visual field data. These actions do not generate incident reports because harm was prevented. Safety science reminds us that high-reliability systems pay attention not only to adverse events but to near misses and everyday adjustments that prevent error.[7] Ophthalmic technicians often contribute to this layer of safety. Recognising that contribution is not about professional status. It is about understanding how the pathway functions as a whole. A shared responsibility This is not an argument that ophthalmic technicians alone safeguard patients. Surgeons, optometrists, nurses, managers and other non-clinical staff all contribute to safe care. Rather, it is an invitation to ensure that diagnostic work is fully integrated into patient safety conversations. Questions worth reflecting on include: How is diagnostic quality measured within surgical pathways? Are escalation thresholds clearly defined and psychologically safe to use? Is learning captured from preoperative discrepancies? Are diagnostic staff included in incident learning discussions? In NHS-contracted independent care, as in all healthcare settings, patient safety depends on system design, team functioning and reliable processes. Diagnostics is the first safety checkpoint in ophthalmic surgery. The people delivering it should be visible within the safety framework, not peripheral to it. References 1. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists, UK Ophthalmology Alliance. Quality Standard. Correct IOL implantation in cataract surgery. March 2018. 2. Reason J. Human Error, 1990; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 3. General Medical Council: Delegation and referral. Last accessed 2 March 2026. 4. NHS England. Patient Safety Incident Response Framework. Last accessed 2 March 2026. 5. Care Quality Commission. The fundamental standards of care. 23 December 2025. 6. House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee. Workforce burnout and resilience in the NHS and social care. Second Report of Session 2021-22. 8 June 2021. 7. Vanderhaegen F. Erik Hollnagel: Safety-I and Safety-II, the past and future of safety management. Cognition Technology and Work 17(3):461-464. -
News ArticleWhen Leigh White remembers her brother Ryan, she thinks of a boy of extraordinary ability who “won five scholarships at 11” including a coveted place at Bancroft’s, a private school in London. He was, she said, “super bright, witty, personable, generous and kind”. Ryan killed himself on 12 May 2024. A report written after his death acknowledged significant shortcomings in the support he received while seeking help for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Ryan had followed the “right to choose” pathway, whereby patients can pick a private provider anywhere in the country for assessment, diagnosis and initial treatment. They then ask their GP to enter a shared-care agreement for prescriptions and monitoring. However, Ryan struggled to get the two services to link up. The problem lies in the fact that shared care is voluntary and not all GPs agree to it. Some patients told the Guardian their doctor had rejected their private diagnosis on the grounds that it did not meet their standards. This was even after the NHS had paid for it – and despite there being no official rules for private providers to follow. Some, like Ryan, end up stuck in administrative limbo. Ryan is one of many people who have been failed by the right to choose system. Psychologists and psychiatrists who spoke to the Guardian shared their concerns that allowing NHS patients to obtain ADHD assessments at private providers was “premature” and had led to a “wild west”. Right to choose was introduced for mental healthcare and neurodevelopmental care in 2018, in part to ease pressure on waiting lists that were up to a decade long. But Marios Adamou, a consultant psychiatrist and founder of the UK Adult ADHD Network (UKAAN), said this had come too soon, because “there was no standard in what good assessment looks like and there’s still no standard for what a qualified assessor would look like”. Right to choose was “poorly regulated, poorly managed and some people are making lots of money out of it”, Adamou said, adding: “If you don’t have regulation for that you are inviting a wild west.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 13 January 2026
-
News Article
UK’s unregulated pregnancy scan clinics putting lives in danger, say experts
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
High street clinics offering pregnancy scans could be putting unborn babies and their mothers in danger through a lack of properly trained staff, UK experts have warned. According to the Society for Radiographers (SoR), high street clinics have seen a huge growth in numbers. However, hospital specialists say they have seen cases of missed health problems, misdiagnosed conditions, and situations in which women were erroneously told their babies were malformed or had died. “I had a lady referred for a potential miscarriage from a clinic and when I scanned her they’d measured a bleed in the womb and they completely missed a very early pregnancy sac with a baby inside it,” said Katie Thompson, a hospital sonographer and president of the SoR. “Potentially, if they were at a private clinic that could offer a miscarriage service, then they could have been given some medication to bring on a miscarriage on a pregnancy that was actually not miscarrying,” she said. The SoR says it has also seen cases in which private clinics have wrongly told women they have an ectopic pregnancy – a potentially life-threatening condition – or conversely missed an ectopic pregnancy, while they have also misdiagnosed problems with the cervix and missed abnormalities in babies that should have been picked up. Elaine Brooks, a former hospital sonographer and Midlands regional officer for the SoR, said some people attended their 20-week hospital scan after having had a private “sexing” scan a week or two before. “And then they come for their NHS scan and there’s quite a large abnormality that should have been picked up – something like spina bifida, polycystic kidneys or fluid-filled ventricles in the head – things that you wouldn’t expect to have developed in a week,” she said. The revelations come amid calls from the SoR for sonographers to have a “protected” job title – meaning it can be used only by qualified practitioners registered with a regulatory body. This is already the case for titles such as radiographer, dietician and speech and language therapist. “At the moment, absolutely anybody can go and buy an ultrasound machine and set up a practice without any qualifications whatsoever. And that has happened,” said Thompson. “There has been somebody that bought a machine and started scanning in her front room because after having a baby, she thought it’d be a nice thing to do.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 3 November 2025 -
Content ArticleIn this blog, Fiona Garín McDonagh reflects on a conversation with Helen Hughes, Chief Executive of Patient Safety Learning, about the persistence of avoidable harm in health and care. She reflects on why progress in reducing this has been slow, how the implementation gap continues to undermine safety efforts, and why we must reframe patient safety as a system-wide priority, not just a frontline concern.
-
News Article
Private hospitals carrying out more NHS appointments and procedures
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
The number of NHS appointments, tests and operations delivered by private hospitals and clinics has increased by almost 500,000 this year, now totalling 6.15 million. Health secretary Wes Streeting said the policy tackles a “two-tier” system by cutting waiting times and ensuring prompt treatment for NHS patients in England. Private providers report delivering around 10 per cent of elective NHS activity. Between August 2024 and September 2025 they conducted an average of 19,000 surgical procedures and 100,000 outpatient appointments every week, treating more than 1.1 million people. Mr Streeting said: “I’ll do everything I can to get NHS patients treated faster, free at the point of use. “This is a principled, progressive position, not just a pragmatic one. “We’re not prepared to continue two-tier healthcare, when those who can afford it get treated on time, and those who can’t are left behind. Wealth shouldn’t determine health.” Using spare capacity in the private sector is key to the government’s target of ensuring that 92 per cent of patients in England should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. Other measures to cut waiting lists include the use of community diagnostic centres (CDCs) and carrying out more surgical procedures on evenings and weekends. Read full story Source: The Independent, 25 October 2025 -
Content ArticleIn most developed countries, people don’t have to worry about sifting through a dozen different health plans—and they don’t live in fear of losing their health care after losing a job. They receive more affordable, higher-quality care than Americans do. The paradox of the world’s wealthiest nation having one of the weakest health systems among developed nations has long been a vexing policy problem—without an easy solution. In this article, Vox Senior Correspondent Dylan Scott looks at how the insurance-based healthcare system in the US developed from the 1920s onwards, and why it is so complex and compartmentalised compared to systems in other developed countries.
-
Content ArticleHundreds of millions of people are denied health care every year by their private insurers. As a result, people stay sick or injured, and sometimes die. People are stuck with bills they can’t pay, take money from rent and food, and go bankrupt. Care Over Cost helps everyday people fight to get the care they deserve. Has a private insurer denied you care? Share your story with Care Over Cost and read other cases.
-
Content Article
In this blog, Vivienne Heckford, NHS PPU Lead at ISCAS (the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service), highlights how many NHS private patients are at a disadvantage if they wish to make a complaint about the healthcare they have received, and asks why only a small proportion of NHS Private Patient Units (PPUs) are signed up to external review systems. Patient and customer complaints in healthcare are not the most exciting issues to discuss or even address. We would all much rather respond to and publicise the compliments we receive. We like to believe we deliver expert care and that our patients receive the best outcomes and the highest standard of care. However, we know that is not always the case. Unfortunately some patients and their friends and family are unhappy with the service they receive or their care outcomes despite best endeavours, and so they decide to complain. Complaints can indicate significant safety issues and have been mentioned in recent healthcare industry safety inquiries like the Paterson Inquiry. Complaints are an excellent opportunity to learn and improve services. If you can provide complainants with meaningful and satisfactory responses then they often become your best and most loyal supporters. However, if you cannot satisfy them there is the risk they become some of your biggest detractors; they will continue to complain through any medium they have access to, which may lead to a lot of media noise. People understand that issues happen and incidents occur. What they want is honesty, openness and an acknowledgement that things will be put right and lessons will be learned. The complaint process is vital to manage complaints fairly and effectively and achieve the best outcome for the patient. The process should be clearly defined for patient, clinician and care provider, so that each knows how it works and what to expect. For those services that are regulated, the Regulator requires compliance with specific regulations for example Regulation 16 of the Health and Social Care Act (Registered Activities) Regulations. I think we all agree that patients should be treated equally and fairly, and we should be open and honest. This means they should have access to an independent review of their complaint if they wish. After all, they can request an independent review of care by asking for an independent second opinion, and serious incidents may require an independent review from outside the organisation, so why should all complainants not have access to an external review of their complaint if they remain dissatisfied. Complainants should be able to have their complaint reviewed by someone who is not employed in that unit and is seen to be impartial regardless of how well they may conduct a complaint investigation. All independent (private) hospitals have access to an external review system and all NHS patients have access to a third-party review by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO); however, only 18% of NHS PPUs are signed up a known external review system. Is this fair? The NHS PPUs are based in NHS hospitals either in a dedicated unit or sometimes spread throughout the hospital in standard ward beds and they accept patients who pay for their services. This gives the patient more choice, improved hospital services and administrative staff to focus on their care. The private patient income can also be used to support the hospital. NHS private patients do not have access to the services of the PHSO and are therefore disadvantaged compared to NHS patients and those cared for in the Independent Sector who have access to ISCAS. This also means that complaint themes are not shared openly in the sector and learning is not facilitated. How does that help patient safety? One of the Paterson Inquiry recommendations (Recommendation 6) says, "We recommend that all private patients should have the right to mandatory independent resolution of their complaint." Would a review of complaints have supported Paterson patients better and enabled an earlier review? Possibly... This recommendation has not been implemented in all NHS PPUs and at all NHS hospitals. There are organisations that can support private patients and providers. They can help with policy development, offer support for staff managing complaints, and provide training resources and adjudication or mediation for difficult complaints. Why are they not being used? If units were to engage with not-for-profit organisations such as ISCAS (Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service) then the cost is minimal and they have access to expert support. Isn’t it time private patients had the same service across all sectors? Further reading on the hub: Ensuring private patients' voices are heard How do I make a complaint: Sources of help and advice -
Content ArticleAt Patient Safety Learning we often get asked by patients and families who have received poor healthcare what they need to do to make a complaint. Although we cannot get directly involved in individual cases, we have put together a simple guides on the steps you can take if you need to make a complaint about your private healthcare. We also have the following guides: How do I make a complaint about my NHS care in England: a simple guide for patients and families How do I make a complaint about my NHS care Northern Ireland: a simple guide for patients and families How do I make a complaint about my NHS care in Scotland: a simple guide for patients and families How do I make a complaint about my NHS care in Wales: a simple guide for patients and families How do I make a complaint: Sources of help and advice By law, the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) cannot look into complaints about privately funded healthcare services. This includes care provided by Private Patient Units within NHS Trusts. However, they will look at complaints about healthcare services provided in a private hospital if the NHS paid for it. They will also look at complaints about NHS-funded healthcare services which privately funded patients get in an NHS hospital. See our ‘Making a complaint about your NHS care' guides above if this applies to you. If you are unhappy about treatment you have received in a private hospital or clinic, it is your right to: Make a complaint. Have the matter investigated. Receive a full and prompt response to your complaint. If you are concerned with the outcome of your treatment, then you should first talk to your treating consultant in order to obtain an explanation and advice. If your consultant is unhelpful or unresponsive, and you believe you are in need of further treatment, you should talk to your GP about your concerns and possible treatment options. This may include obtaining a referral for a second opinion. Making a formal complaint to the hospital or clinic If you are unhappy with the response, you can make a complaint using the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication service (ISCAS) who have a code of practice for handling patients’ complaints. However this will only apply to private healthcare providers who are ISCAS subscribers or to patients treated by an Independent Doctors Federation Member ISCAS is one of the recognised independent adjudication services of complaints for the private healthcare sector. ISCAS has produced a patients’ guide with input from the Patients Association which explains how to make a complaint about using the ISCAS Complaints Code of Practice. Here are the stages to take if you would like to make a complaint about private care you received. More information on each step is given below. See the full Patients’ Guide to the ISCAS Code for more information. Stage 1: Complaint raised directly with the clinic or hospital where care was provided Complaining can be stressful, so the aim should always be to try and sort out any problems as quickly and informally as possible. If your complaint is responded to effectively when you first raise your concerns, then it is unlikely that matters will need to be escalated through stages 2 and 3. Before you make a formal complaint, ask the provider for a copy of their complaints procedure. If you do not wish to speak to a member of ‘frontline’ staff, or if you are unhappy with how they have responded, you can take your complaint to someone more senior within the organisation, such as the unit Manager or Hospital Manager. You should normally make your complaint within six months. The provider may be willing to investigate complaints after this time where there is a realistic opportunity of conducting a fair and effective investigation, and if you have a good reason why you could not act sooner (for example, if you were unaware of the matter, if you were unwell or grieving). If you are not satisfied with the outcome, you can escalate your complaint to stage 2. Stage 2: Internal review of complaint by someone who was not involved at stage 1 If you wish to escalate your complaint to stage 2, you should do so in writing, within 6 months of the final response at stage 1. Normally the complaint review at stage 2 will be conducted by a senior member of staff who has not been involved in the handling of the complaint up to that point and is not involved in the daily operation of the hospital/clinic. The person conducting the complaint review is expected to send you a full, written response on the outcome of the review within 20 working days. Where the investigation is still in progress, you should receive a letter explaining the reasons for the delay. The aim is to complete the review at stage 2, in most cases within 3 months. Stage 3: External review If you are not satisfied with the complaint review at stage 2, you have the right to refer the matter to stage 3 independent external adjudication through ISCAS (for subscribing providers). Please see the providers who are covered. You need to do this within 6 months of receiving the final response at stage 2 and ISCAS aims to complete its adjudications within 3-6 months. The person making a complaint does not pay for the complaints process. Stage 3 adjudication will not consider ‘new’ issues that have not previously been raised with the provider, with the exception of concerns raised about the way the private healthcare provider has handled the complaint, which may not surface until after a response has been made at stage 2. If you wish to escalate your complaint to ISCAS at stage 3, you should do this in writing. Your letter should include the information in the Patients’ Guide to the ISCAS Code, which also provides more information on prompts to help you think through what you want to achieve, and whether it is achievable under the ISCAS Code. The Independent Adjudicator will decide to uphold or not uphold each aspect of your complaint. They have the discretion to award a goodwill payment up to a limit of £5,000, in accordance with the ISCAS Goodwill Payments Guide. There is no appeal to Stage 3 adjudication and the Independent Adjudicator’s decision is final. However you can seek legal action at any point during or after the ISCAS complaints process and your statutory rights are not affected. If you are not satisfied with the way ISCAS has managed the stage 3 process you are entitled to make a complaint about ISCAS. AvMA (Action against Medical Accidents) have a number of self-help guides that provide clear and straightforward explanations of the procedure and guide you through making a complaint about your treatment. Unlike PHSO for the NHS, ISCAS cannot deal with complaints related to clinical negligence (e.g. injuries caused by poor hospital hygiene or failure to follow proper procedures). Clinical negligence complaints should go straight to the relevant professional regulator, or patients should seek accredited legal advice. Patients with private medical insurance can take their financial (but not clinical) complaints directly to their insurer, and escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service. These routes to resolution should always result in satisfying a patient’s reasonable demands without needing to resort to the civil courts. Complain to the Care Quality Commission Under the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act (2003), the Care Quality Commission (CQC) is now responsible for regulating and inspecting independent healthcare in England. If for any reason you are unable to get the private health provider to respond to a complaint, or if you are unhappy with their response, you can make a complaint to the CQC (or the equivalent body in Scotland Northern Ireland and Wales). England: Care Quality Commission; Telephone: 03000 616161 Northern Ireland: The Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority; Telephone: 028 9051 7500, Email: [email protected] Scotland: Healthcare Improvement Scotland; Telephone: 0131 623 4300, Email: [email protected] Wales: Healthcare Inspectorate Wales; Telephone: 0300 062 8163, Email: [email protected] It is a statutory duty on providers registered with the CQC to have a complaints system in place that is brought to the attention of service users, which provides complainants with support where necessary and which should ensure that the complaint is fully investigated to satisfy the service user as far as reasonably practicable. Complain to the professional regulating body If the issue is about an individual health professional’s fitness to practise, make a complaint to the relevant professional regulating body, such as the General Medical Council (for doctors) or Nursing and Midwifery Council. AvMa has a self-help guide. Complaint about private dental care If your complaint is about privately funded dental care, contact the Dental Complaints Service. Complaint about private eye treatment If your complaint is about privately funded eye treatment, contact the Optical Consumer Complaints Service.
- Posted
- 1 comment
-
- (and 5 more)
-
Content ArticleThis review has concluded that hospitals that are privatised typically deliver worse quality care after converting from public ownership. The researchers carried out a meta-analysis based on evidence from 13 longitudinal studies, covering a range of high-income countries.* Each study assessed quality of healthcare measures for patients before and after health service privatisation, at either the hospital or regional level. The studies included measured indicators of care quality which included staffing levels, patient mix by insurance type, the number of services provided, workload for doctors, and health outcomes for patients such as avoidable hospitalisations. Key findings: Increases in privatisation generally corresponded with worse quality of care, with no studies included in the review finding unequivocally positive effects on health outcomes. Hospitals converting from public to private ownership status tended to make higher profits. This was mainly achieved by reducing staff levels and reducing the proportion of patients with limited health insurance coverage. Privatisation generally corresponded with fewer cleaning staff employed per patient, and higher rates of patient infections. In some studies, higher levels of hospital privatisation corresponded with higher rates of avoidable deaths. However, in some cases (e.g. Croatia), privatisation led to some benefits for patient access, through more precise appointments and new means of care delivery, such as out-of-hours telephone calls.
