Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

177532

registered interest
date	03/02/2015
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Patients: Safety
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many Strategic Executive Information System reports dating from before the Health and Social Care Act 2012 are waiting conclusion.
tabling member constituency	Liverpool, Wavertree
tabling member printed	Luciana Berger
uin	223214
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/02/2015 answer text <p>Data and information safeguarding was strengthened under the Health and Social Care Act 2012. When data was extracted on 4 February the Strategic Executive Information System (STEIS) held reports of 1,255 Serious Incidents whose status was not classified as ‘closed’. It is not possible to determine from the database which of these incidents had been resolved locally.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The principles for responding to Serious Incidents are set out in the current Serious Incident Framework, published in March 2013, and this includes the roles and responsibilities of providers and commissioners including effective governance and learning from a serious incident.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>NHS England is currently refreshing the Serious Incident Framework to take account of supporting all the guidance produced since March 2013 over 2013-14 and to reflect operational feedback on the implementation of the 2013 Framework.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Suffolk and North Ipswich answering member printed Dr Daniel Poulter question first answered 10/02/2015 18:02:58 answering member 3932 label Biography information for Dr Dan Poulter
tabling member	4036 label Biography information for Luciana Berger

166013

registered interest
date	25/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Patients: Safety
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how the findings of the friends and family test are being used to improve patient safety in the NHS.
tabling member constituency	Wolverhampton South West
tabling member printed	Paul Uppal
uin	215852
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/12/2014 answer text <p>The Friends and Family Test (FFT) was implemented as a mechanism to provide near real-time feedback to identify both good and poor quality patient experience. Whilst the FFT aims to capture overall patient experience, part of the experience that patients may choose to comment on is whether they felt their care was safe. This information can then be used by providers to consider what they do well and make improvements where feedback is less positive. Commissioners and regulators monitor the results of the FFT and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) uses the data - together with other data such as mortality rates and ‘never events’ - as part of its new ‘Hospital Intelligence Monitoring’. The monitoring service gives the CQC an understanding of areas of care that need to be further investigated by inspectors:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.cqc.org.uk/public/hospital-intelligent-monitoring" target="_blank">http://www.cqc.org.uk/public/hospital-intelligent-monitoring</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In April 2014, the Staff FFT was introduced to allow staff feedback on NHS Services based on recent experience. The Staff FFT asks staff to rate and comment on where they work as a place to work and as a place of care. This information can then be used by employers to consider what they do well and make improvements where feedback is less positive.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Commissioners and regulators also monitor the results of the Staff FFT, and the CQC uses this data as part of their Intelligent Monitoring system. The response to this question is also displayed as a key patient safety indicator on NHS Choices:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/patient-safety/Pages/patient-safety-indicators.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/patient-safety/Pages/patient-safety-indicators.aspx</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In addition, hospital boards and other providers and commissioners of services can consider the results of the FFT to consider the implications for quality and safety. A NHS England review of the FFT found that it is performing well as a service improvement tool, with 85% of trusts reporting that it is being used to improve patient experience, and 78% saying that FFT has increased the emphasis placed on patient experience in their trusts.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Suffolk and North Ipswich answering member printed Dr Daniel Poulter question first answered 02/12/2014 17:04:04 answering member 3932 label Biography information for Dr Dan Poulter
tabling member	4078 label Biography information for Paul Uppal

164366

registered interest
date	24/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Patients: Safety
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what progress he has made on implementing the recommendations of the Berwick report into Improving the Safety of Patients in England, published in August 2013.
tabling member constituency	Wolverhampton South West
tabling member printed	Paul Uppal
uin	215725
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/12/2014 answer text <p>The Government has put in place a number of measures to support National Health Service orgnisations to respond positively to the Berwick Report ‘<em>Improving the Safety of Patients in England</em>’’ including greater transparency, openness and candour; ensuring safe staffing levels; creating a culture of learning and development with the establishment of 15 Patient Safety Collaboratives; and making patient safety a primary goal with a new ambition to halve avoidable harm and save 6,000 lives over the next three years, underpinned by the Sign up to Safety campaign.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Suffolk and North Ipswich answering member printed Dr Daniel Poulter question first answered 01/12/2014 17:23:17 answering member 3932 label Biography information for Dr Dan Poulter
tabling member	4078 label Biography information for Paul Uppal

164370

registered interest
date	24/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Patients: Safety
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has to increase the use of patient experience surveys in the NHS to inform patient safety initiatives; and if he will make a statement.
tabling member constituency	Copeland
tabling member printed	Mr Jamie Reed
uin	215718
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/11/2014 answer text <p>Patient experience surveys are a valuable source of evidence and the results are used in a range of ways, including the assessment of National Health Service performance as well as in regulatory activities such as registration, monitoring ongoing compliance and reviews. The Care Quality Commission has developed a new Intelligent Monitoring tool to give inspectors a clear picture of the areas of care that need to be followed up within an NHS acute trust or a specialist NHS trust. The system is built on a set of indicators that look at a range of information including patient experience, staff experience and performance.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In addition to the patient experience surveys hospital boards and other providers and commissioners of services can also consider the results of the Friends and Family Test (FFT) to consider the implications for quality and safety. While not a traditional survey, the FFT provides near real-time feedback to identify both good and poor quality patient experience. A NHS England review of the FFT found that it is performing well as a service improvement tool, with 85% of trusts reporting that it is being used to improve patient experience, and 78% saying that FFT has increased the emphasis placed on patient experience in their trusts.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Mid Norfolk answering member printed George Freeman question first answered 27/11/2014 17:09:16 answering member 4020 label Biography information for George Freeman
tabling member	1503 label Biography information for Mr Jamie Reed

164371

registered interest
date	24/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Patients: Safety
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the relationship between cost savings to the NHS and improved patient safety; and if he will make a statement.
tabling member constituency	Stockton North
tabling member printed	Alex Cunningham
uin	215712
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/11/2014 answer text <p>The Department commissioned Frontier Economics to investigate the costs of unsafe care in the National Health Service. The final report, <em>Exploring the cost of unsafe care</em> <em>in the NHS</em> suggests that the costs of preventable, adverse events is likely to be more than £1 billion per year, but could be up to £2.5 billion annually. The report, which was published on 16 October, is available at:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.frontier-economics.com/publications/exploring-the-costs-of-unsafe-care-in-the-nhs/" target="_blank">http://www.frontier-economics.com/publications/exploring-the-costs-of-unsafe-care-in-the-nhs/</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Sign up to Safety campaign launched in June is now working with healthcare organisations to make the NHS one of the safest healthcare systems in the world and contribute to the goal to halve avoidable harm and save 6,000 lives over the next three years.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>It is difficult to disaggregate direct cash releasing savings from this evidence which must take into account the upfront costs of investing in safer care.</p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Suffolk and North Ipswich answering member printed Dr Daniel Poulter question first answered 27/11/2014 16:45:29 answering member 3932 label Biography information for Dr Dan Poulter
tabling member	4122 label Biography information for Alex Cunningham

164380

registered interest
date	24/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Patients: Safety
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the rates of (a) pulmonary embolism, (b) blood-stream infection and (c) foreign body left in after procedure has been in England in each year since 2000.
tabling member constituency	Wolverhampton South West
tabling member printed	Paul Uppal
uin	215682
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/12/2014 answer text <p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p>The Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) has provided data on (a) a count of finished admission episodes (FAEs) where there was a primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and the number of FAEs as a rate per 100,000 of the total number of FAEs and (b) a count of finished consultant episodes (FCEs) with a primary or secondary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and the number of FCEs as a rate per 100,000 of the total number FCEs, for the years 2000-01 to 2012-13.</p><p> </p><p>This is summarised in the following table:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Year</p></td><td><p>FAEs with primary diagnosis of &quot;pulmonary embolism&quot;</p></td><td><p>Rate per 100,000 of total FAEs</p></td><td><p>FCEs with primary or secondary diagnosis of &quot;pulmonary embolism&quot;</p></td><td><p>Rate per 100,000 of total FCEs</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2000-01</p></td><td><p>15,179</p></td><td><p>136.5</p></td><td><p>32,937</p></td><td><p>268.6</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2001-02</p></td><td><p>14,735</p></td><td><p>133.0</p></td><td><p>33,537</p></td><td><p>271.8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2002-03</p></td><td><p>15,536</p></td><td><p>136.6</p></td><td><p>37,093</p></td><td><p>291.8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2003-04</p></td><td><p>16,095</p></td><td><p>136.3</p></td><td><p>39,196</p></td><td><p>294.8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2004-05</p></td><td><p>15,621</p></td><td><p>129.1</p></td><td><p>40,059</p></td><td><p>292.3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2005-06</p></td><td><p>16,347</p></td><td><p>128.9</p></td><td><p>43,360</p></td><td><p>300.6</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2006-07</p></td><td><p>16,629</p></td><td><p>128.1</p></td><td><p>46,685</p></td><td><p>315.8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2007-08</p></td><td><p>16,948</p></td><td><p>125.7</p></td><td><p>49,114</p></td><td><p>319.8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2008-09</p></td><td><p>18,214</p></td><td><p>128.7</p></td><td><p>56,029</p></td><td><p>345.2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009-10</p></td><td><p>19,763</p></td><td><p>135.9</p></td><td><p>62,367</p></td><td><p>371.1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010-11</p></td><td><p>20,908</p></td><td><p>140.4</p></td><td><p>67,477</p></td><td><p>390.7</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011-12</p></td><td><p>21,525</p></td><td><p>143.3</p></td><td><p>70,466</p></td><td><p>403.5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012-13</p></td><td><p>23,578</p></td><td><p>155.7</p></td><td><p>79,058</p></td><td><p>446.3</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Public Health England (PHE) collects data on blood stream infections caused by bacteria (bacteraemia) relating to specific organisms as part of its mandatory Healthcare Associated Infection surveillance programmes.</p><p> </p><p>Microbiology laboratories in England, Wales and Northern Ireland also voluntarily submit data to PHE relating to episodes of bacteraemia and blood stream infections caused by fungi (fungaemia).</p><p> </p><p>The data summarised in Tables 1-3, taken from PHE’s mandatory surveillance programmes, represent bacteraemia cases reported in England resulting from: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA); Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) and E.coli where comparable data is available. Rates of all reported cases per 100,000 population are included, where available.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="8"><p>Table 1a: All reported cases of MRSA bacteraemia (April 2007-March 2014)</p><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Financial year</p></td><td><p>April 2007 to March 2008</p></td><td><p>April 2008 to March 2009</p></td><td><p>April 2009 to March 2010</p></td><td><p>April 2010 to March 2011</p></td><td><p>April 2011 to March 2012</p></td><td><p>April 2012 to March 2013</p></td><td><p>April 2013 to March 2014</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Count</p></td><td><p>4,451</p></td><td><p>2,935</p></td><td><p>1,898</p></td><td><p>1,481</p></td><td><p>1,116</p></td><td><p>924</p></td><td><p>862</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Rate per 100,000 population</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>3.6</p></td><td><p>2.8</p></td><td><p>2.1</p></td><td><p>1.7</p></td><td><p>1.6</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em>Note: </em>Data is available at: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mrsa-bacteraemia-annual-data" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mrsa-bacteraemia-annual-data</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><p>Table 2: All reported cases of MSSA bacteraemia (April 2011 - March 2014)</p><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Financial year</p></td><td><p>April 2011 to March 2012</p></td><td><p>April 2012 to March 2013</p></td><td><p>April 2013 to March 2014</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Count</p></td><td><p>8,767</p></td><td><p>8,812</p></td><td><p>9,290</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Rate per 100,000 population</p></td><td><p>16.5</p></td><td><p>16.5</p></td><td><p>17.4</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em>Note: </em>Data is available at: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mssa-bacteraemia-annual-data" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mssa-bacteraemia-annual-data</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><p>Table 3: All reported cases of <em>E. coli </em>bacteraemia (April 2012-March 2014)</p><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Financial year</p></td><td><p>April 2012 to March 2013</p></td><td><p>April 2013 to March 2014</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Count</p></td><td><p>32,309</p></td><td><p>34,275</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Rate per 100,000 population</p></td><td><p>60.4</p></td><td><p>64.1</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em>Note: </em>Data is available at: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/escherichia-coli-e-coli-bacteraemia-annual-data" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/escherichia-coli-e-coli-bacteraemia-annual-data</a></p><p> </p><p>The data summarised in Table 4, taken from PHE’s voluntary surveillance database, represents all voluntarily reported patient episodes involving either bacteraemia and/or fungaemia for the period of January 2008 to December 2012 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><p>Table 4: Patient episodes involving either bacteraemia and/or fungaemia 2008-2012, England, Wales and Northern Ireland</p><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Calendar Year</p></td><td><p>2008</p></td><td><p>2009</p></td><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>2012</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Count</p></td><td><p>95,931</p></td><td><p>94,190</p></td><td><p>92,867</p></td><td><p>94,166</p></td><td><p>95,647</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em>Note: </em>Data extracted from the Public Health England (PHE) voluntary surveillance database, LabBase2, on 3 December 2013.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Before 2009, information was not collated on foreign bodies retained after procedures (which is classed as a ‘never event’) and so we are unable to provide data for the period prior to 2009.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In 2009-10, there were nine retained foreign objects post procedure reported during this period.</p><p> </p><p>In 2010-11, there were 67 retained foreign object never events reported to Strategic Executive Information System (STEIS) and 22 reported to the National Reporting and Learning Service (NRLS).</p><p> </p><p>In 2011-12, there were 161 retained foreign object never events reported to STEIS and 86 reported to the NRLS in 2011-12.</p><p> </p><p>In 2012-13, there were 130 retained foreign object never events reported to STEIS and 124 reported to the NRLS in 2012-13 (please note incidents are potentially reported to both systems but the exact degree of overlap of reported incidents during the period 2010-11 and 2011-12 is unclear).</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Since April 2013 reports made to the NRLS and STEIS have been directly reconciled to provide a single total and provisional data published by NHS England shows 123 retained object never events were reported in 2013-14 and 44 in the six months to September 2014:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/patientsafety/never-events/ne-data/" target="_blank">http://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/patientsafety/never-events/ne-data/</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Methods for identifying and collating the data from two systems (NRLS and STEIS) have changed over the years, with specific reporting fields for Never events replacing keyword searches, and year-end attempts to reconcile events reported in both systems replaced with direct communication as and when incidents were reported. This is a further reason why events from the earlier years are not directly comparable. The numbers of Never Events reported for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were reported in Annex A of the ‘<em>The never events policy framework: An update to the never events policy</em>’</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213046/never-events-policy-framework-update-to-policy.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213046/never-events-policy-framework-update-to-policy.pdf</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>It should be noted that the updated policy expanded the list of never events from 8 to 25 in 2012 and the detail of definitions of retained foreign objects was also clarified in The never events list; 2013/14 update:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/nev-ev-list-1314-clar.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/nev-ev-list-1314-clar.pdf</a>.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Note numbers in different years are not directly comparable due to these definitional changes.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Suffolk and North Ipswich answering member printed Dr Daniel Poulter question first answered 01/12/2014 17:19:54 answering member 3932 label Biography information for Dr Dan Poulter
tabling member	4078 label Biography information for Paul Uppal

164381

registered interest
date	24/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Patients: Safety
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many hospitals have been rated poor with regards to open and honest reporting of patient safety incidents in each month since May 2010.
tabling member constituency	Wolverhampton South West
tabling member printed	Paul Uppal
uin	215683
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/12/2014 answer text <p>As at 28 November 2014, 91 trusts were recorded as poor (red) against the open and honest reporting indicator. Data prior to June 2014 is not available in this form.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Suffolk and North Ipswich answering member printed Dr Daniel Poulter question first answered 01/12/2014 17:30:33 answering member 3932 label Biography information for Dr Dan Poulter
tabling member	4078 label Biography information for Paul Uppal

143393

registered interest
date	07/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Patients: Safety
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to promote the Sign up to Safety campaign; and if he will make a statement.
tabling member constituency	Bromley and Chislehurst
tabling member printed	Robert Neill
uin	213871
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2014 answer text <p>The Sign up to Safety campaign was launched on 24 June 2014. Each organisation that has joined the campaign has committed to improving patient safety through the implementation of a Safety Improvement Plan. The Safety Improvement Plan builds on the pledges the organisation set out when joining. The pledges are expanded in more detail in the plan, which sets out what the organisation wants to achieve and by when. Each organisation is expected to demonstrate how they will measure the local impact of their aims over the next three years via a measurement section within their plans. They will then implement their aims over the next three years.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Sign up to Safety campaign is being promoted by means of:</p><p> </p><p>- a national campaign website;</p><p> </p><p>- regional and national presentations at events across the country delivered by the Campaign Director, the Secretary of State and others;</p><p> </p><p>- Twitter with over 1,500 followers;</p><p> </p><p>- a blog by the Campaign Director;</p><p> </p><p>- an online seminar programme (webinars);</p><p> </p><p>- through partner organisations including NHS England, Care Quality Commission, Monitor, NHS Trust Development Authority, NHS Litigation Authority, Health Education England, and NHS Improving Quality;</p><p> </p><p>- mini poster campaigns, such as the Safe Care Costs Less, and individual events, such as the launch of the Patient Briefing Video; and</p><p> </p><p>- through participant websites and local events.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>As at the end of October 2014, a total number of 136 organisations have agreed to participate in the Sign up to Safety campaign. Each participant organisation is expected to set out how they will contribute to the campaign’s three year objective via their Safety Improvement Plan – they are expected to quantify the expected impact of their actions on a reduction of avoidable harm and saving lives. The measurement and evaluation of the impact at a regional and national level will be led by NHS England working with NHS Improving Quality as part of the integrated measurement strategy for both the campaign and the Patient Safety Collaborative programme. This will include the National Reporting and Learning System, harms via the Safety Thermometer and mortality rates, case studies of individual organisations and patient record reviews.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Suffolk and North Ipswich answering member printed Dr Daniel Poulter grouped question UIN 213870 213872 question first answered 19/11/2014 15:47:48 answering member 3932 label Biography information for Dr Dan Poulter
tabling member	1601 label Biography information for Sir Robert Neill

143394

registered interest
date	07/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Patients: Safety
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether the Sign up to Safety campaign is on course to achieve its three-year objective to (a) reduce avoidable harm by 50 per cent and (b) save 6,000 lives.
tabling member constituency	Bromley and Chislehurst
tabling member printed	Robert Neill
uin	213872
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2014 answer text <p>The Sign up to Safety campaign was launched on 24 June 2014. Each organisation that has joined the campaign has committed to improving patient safety through the implementation of a Safety Improvement Plan. The Safety Improvement Plan builds on the pledges the organisation set out when joining. The pledges are expanded in more detail in the plan, which sets out what the organisation wants to achieve and by when. Each organisation is expected to demonstrate how they will measure the local impact of their aims over the next three years via a measurement section within their plans. They will then implement their aims over the next three years.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Sign up to Safety campaign is being promoted by means of:</p><p> </p><p>- a national campaign website;</p><p> </p><p>- regional and national presentations at events across the country delivered by the Campaign Director, the Secretary of State and others;</p><p> </p><p>- Twitter with over 1,500 followers;</p><p> </p><p>- a blog by the Campaign Director;</p><p> </p><p>- an online seminar programme (webinars);</p><p> </p><p>- through partner organisations including NHS England, Care Quality Commission, Monitor, NHS Trust Development Authority, NHS Litigation Authority, Health Education England, and NHS Improving Quality;</p><p> </p><p>- mini poster campaigns, such as the Safe Care Costs Less, and individual events, such as the launch of the Patient Briefing Video; and</p><p> </p><p>- through participant websites and local events.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>As at the end of October 2014, a total number of 136 organisations have agreed to participate in the Sign up to Safety campaign. Each participant organisation is expected to set out how they will contribute to the campaign’s three year objective via their Safety Improvement Plan – they are expected to quantify the expected impact of their actions on a reduction of avoidable harm and saving lives. The measurement and evaluation of the impact at a regional and national level will be led by NHS England working with NHS Improving Quality as part of the integrated measurement strategy for both the campaign and the Patient Safety Collaborative programme. This will include the National Reporting and Learning System, harms via the Safety Thermometer and mortality rates, case studies of individual organisations and patient record reviews.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Suffolk and North Ipswich answering member printed Dr Daniel Poulter grouped question UIN 213870 213871 question first answered 19/11/2014 15:47:48 answering member 3932 label Biography information for Dr Dan Poulter
tabling member	1601 label Biography information for Sir Robert Neill

143397

registered interest
date	07/11/2014
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Patients: Safety
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what progress organisations which have participated in the Sign up to Safety campaign have made on fulfilling the pledges in that campaign; and if he will make a statement.
tabling member constituency	Bromley and Chislehurst
tabling member printed	Robert Neill
uin	213870
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2014 answer text <p>The Sign up to Safety campaign was launched on 24 June 2014. Each organisation that has joined the campaign has committed to improving patient safety through the implementation of a Safety Improvement Plan. The Safety Improvement Plan builds on the pledges the organisation set out when joining. The pledges are expanded in more detail in the plan, which sets out what the organisation wants to achieve and by when. Each organisation is expected to demonstrate how they will measure the local impact of their aims over the next three years via a measurement section within their plans. They will then implement their aims over the next three years.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Sign up to Safety campaign is being promoted by means of:</p><p> </p><p>- a national campaign website;</p><p> </p><p>- regional and national presentations at events across the country delivered by the Campaign Director, the Secretary of State and others;</p><p> </p><p>- Twitter with over 1,500 followers;</p><p> </p><p>- a blog by the Campaign Director;</p><p> </p><p>- an online seminar programme (webinars);</p><p> </p><p>- through partner organisations including NHS England, Care Quality Commission, Monitor, NHS Trust Development Authority, NHS Litigation Authority, Health Education England, and NHS Improving Quality;</p><p> </p><p>- mini poster campaigns, such as the Safe Care Costs Less, and individual events, such as the launch of the Patient Briefing Video; and</p><p> </p><p>- through participant websites and local events.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>As at the end of October 2014, a total number of 136 organisations have agreed to participate in the Sign up to Safety campaign. Each participant organisation is expected to set out how they will contribute to the campaign’s three year objective via their Safety Improvement Plan – they are expected to quantify the expected impact of their actions on a reduction of avoidable harm and saving lives. The measurement and evaluation of the impact at a regional and national level will be led by NHS England working with NHS Improving Quality as part of the integrated measurement strategy for both the campaign and the Patient Safety Collaborative programme. This will include the National Reporting and Learning System, harms via the Safety Thermometer and mortality rates, case studies of individual organisations and patient record reviews.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Suffolk and North Ipswich answering member printed Dr Daniel Poulter grouped question UIN 213871 213872 question first answered 19/11/2014 15:47:48 answering member 3932 label Biography information for Dr Dan Poulter
tabling member	1601 label Biography information for Sir Robert Neill