This week’s opportunities span cancer diagnostics, medicines manufacturing, research delivery, and community health and care services. Many have specific eligibility or partnership requirements, so organisations will need to assess whether they can meet the criteria and prepare a credible bid. The report also distinguishes live opportunities from pipeline notices, which can help members decide whether to act now or prepare for a future call.

UKHLSI members receive the weekly report and can discuss tailored support with assessing opportunities, strengthening bids and finding delivery partners. Organisations interested in joining UKHLSI or discussing a specific opportunity can contact enquiries@ukhlsi.co.uk.

Wendy Olayiwola

National Maternity Lead for Equality, NHS England

Speaking at the Women’s Healthcare and FemTech Summit in Manchester organised by UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI), NHS England’s National Maternity Lead for Equality set out how inequalities in health, access and experience shape maternity care. She called for services to respond to women’s needs across their lives, listen to their concerns and support a workforce able to deliver safe, inclusive care.

Maternity services only work well when every woman can understand and reach the care available to her and feels safe using it. That was the message from Wendy Olayiwola, National Maternity Lead for Equality at NHS England, at the Women’s Healthcare and FemTech Summit in Manchester.

Olayiwola’s contribution formed part of the summit’s morning programme, which followed the health journey women experience – from menstrual and reproductive health to pregnancy and maternity care. The wider event brought together healthcare leaders, policymakers, researchers, investors, employers, and innovators to discuss how to improve outcomes, reduce inequalities, and turn policy ambition into action.

“Maternity services only become meaningful when every woman – and I mean every woman – regardless of her background, ethnicity, where she was born or the postcode where she lives, understands the services available, can reach those services and feels safe within them,” she said.

Inequalities remain stark

Olayiwola said evidence continued to show unequal outcomes in maternity care, particularly for Black and Asian women and women living in deprived areas. She cited the latest MBRRACE-UK report, which recorded 257 maternal deaths during pregnancy or within six weeks of the end of pregnancy between 2021 and 2023.

The report put the maternal mortality rate at 12.44 per 100,000 maternities for white women, 16.74 for Asian women, and 28.21 for Black women. Black women remained 2.3 times more likely to die than white women, while women in the most deprived areas were 1.9 times more likely to experience maternal mortality.

Olayiwola said the figures sat within wider inequalities across women’s health. Women in the wealthiest areas live almost ten years longer than women in the poorest, she noted, and can expect around 20 more years in good health.

She stressed that these differences were not inevitable. They were shaped by systemic, structural and cultural factors – and could be prevented.

“These inequalities are absolutely not inevitable. They are preventable.”

She also highlighted the importance of listening to women’s experiences alongside mortality figures and formal reviews. Around one in ten women reported that concerns raised during labour and birth were not taken seriously in the 2025 survey, she said.

Care must follow the whole life course

One of the main themes of Olayiwola’s speech was that women’s health should not be treated as a set of separate services. Menstrual health, fertility, pregnancy, postnatal recovery, and later life are connected parts of a woman’s health journey, she argued.

Social conditions also shape health before a woman reaches maternity services. Food insecurity, unsafe housing and inflexible work can affect women’s health and access to care. Preconception support can help manage existing conditions, including diabetes, epilepsy and cardiovascular disease, before pregnancy begins.

The summit agenda was designed around a similar life-course approach, connecting lived experience and inequalities with discussions about research, innovation, funding, and delivery. Its afternoon programme shifted the focus to what government, health systems, investors, employers, and innovators could do to improve outcomes.

Respectful care and a supported workforce

Olayiwola described respectful care as part of clinical quality, not an optional addition. It means giving women clear information, gaining their consent and making sure they feel able to return when their symptoms change. It also means listening to women, believing them and providing professional interpretation when needed.

She called for women’s reported experiences to be measured and considered alongside clinical outcomes, with data reviewed across different communities.

The workforce, she added, is central to whether policy becomes good care. Discrimination and fear of speaking up can affect communication, decision-making, and escalation. She also highlighted the importance of representation and career progression for Black and brown staff.

“The workforce is the medium through which policy becomes care.”

Olayiwola said responsibility for tackling maternity inequalities extended beyond the NHS. NHS and integrated care board leaders, policymakers, commissioners, investors, and innovators all had a role to play.

She concluded by returning to the importance of acting before women enter maternity services. By the time someone reaches fertility or maternity care, opportunities to address some risks may already have been missed. Improving outcomes therefore requires action on wider population health as well as women’s health.

The summit’s wider aim was to turn those discussions into practical recommendations, partnerships and continued work through a Women’s Healthcare Working Group.

Olayiwola’s key message was that lasting progress depends on connecting those commitments with the experiences women have throughout their lives.

Get involved – Women’s Health Working Group

To find out more about getting involved with UKHLSI’s Women’s Health Working Group chaired by former Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, and Mental Health and Social Care, Paula Sherriff, please contact enquiries@ukhlsi.co.uk

Published on 14 October, the 2030 Strategy sets out how the agency intends to support faster access to safe and effective treatments while strengthening patient involvement, improving safety monitoring and tackling illegal medicines.

Its ambitions extend beyond approving individual products. The strategy envisages a regulator that uses AI in its own work, draws more effectively on hospital and genomic data, and collaborates internationally to reduce duplication.

For patients, the promise is earlier access to innovations that can prevent, diagnose and treat disease. For developers, it is a clearer and more predictable route through regulation. Whether those benefits reach frontline care will depend on how effectively the strategy connects with the wider health system.

AI is changing healthcare – and the regulator intends to change with it

Among the most significant commitments is the establishment of an MHRA Centre for AI and Digital Health, intended to clarify regulatory expectations for developers of digital and AI-driven medical devices and medicines.

The agency also plans to create a modern, adaptive framework for AI as a medical device and publish an AI Medicines Development Action Plan in 2027.

An AI-enabled Clinical Trial Protocol Checker will support sponsors in preparing higher-quality applications, while the regulator intends to recruit specialist expertise and use AI to analyse real-world data and identify potential safety concerns earlier.

MHRA Chief Executive Lawrence Tallon said:

“We are in the midst of a period of extraordinary scientific and technological discovery, which is helping to reshape how diseases can be prevented, diagnosed and treated. AI is transforming both regulated products and how organisations are run. Cell and gene therapies are offering the possibility of long-lasting or curative treatments. Precision and personalised medicines are transforming the accuracy and effectiveness of treatments. Advanced diagnostics are driving earlier intervention and better outcomes for patients.

“These ground-breaking developments challenge traditional regulatory models and require innovative approaches to evidence generation, clinical research design, manufacturing oversight and safety and surveillance. Our 2030 Strategy sets out how, working with our partners across health and life sciences, we will translate scientific and technological innovation into better health outcomes for people across all four nations of the UK.”

The distinction between regulating AI and using AI to regulate matters. Developers need clarity about the evidence their products must generate; the MHRA will also need assurance that its own AI tools produce reliable, explainable results.

An adaptive framework will therefore need to combine flexibility with clear accountability, particularly where a product’s performance changes after deployment.

Faster regulatory decisions could help patients – if the wider pathway keeps pace

The strategy includes concrete proposals to improve regulatory services.

A new higher-value service option will shorten the scientific advice timetable from 90 days to 45 days, while the initial assessment target for qualifying Phase 1 clinical trials will be halved to 14 days.

The MHRA also intends to make faster decisions on generic and biosimilar products, supporting earlier patient access and opportunities for NHS savings.

For businesses, predictable timelines can be as valuable as shorter ones, helping developers plan studies, investment and market entry.

However, regulatory approval is one stage in the journey to patient access. Evidence requirements, assessment, commissioning, procurement, workforce readiness and implementation must connect. Otherwise, time saved during regulation risks being lost later in the pathway.

The proposed targeted voucher scheme to reduce regulatory barriers for start-ups and smaller companies could help broaden access to support. Its practical value will depend on eligibility, availability and how well it addresses the costs smaller developers face.

Better safety monitoring will depend on better-connected data

The MHRA plans to enhance access to real-world data from hospitals and genomics, working with the Health Data Research Service to identify safety signals sooner and collect information on investigational medicinal products.

For medical devices, the strategy promises better data collection and more precise identification and traceability throughout their lifecycle. Yellow Card reporting will also become simpler and quicker for patients and healthcare professionals.

These commitments recognise that evidence generation continues after a product enters use. Real-world data can help reveal how treatments perform across different populations and clinical settings.

For AI, this is particularly relevant: performance may vary between organisations, patient groups and workflows. Effective surveillance will require consistent information, clear reporting responsibilities and the ability to act when problems emerge.

Data connectivity should therefore be judged by whether it supports timely clinical and regulatory decisions, alongside its technical reach.

Co-Chair of the UKAI Healthcare and Life Sciences Working Group, and President of Genomics, Dave Thornton welcomed the strategy:

“As a science-led pioneer in healthcare and life sciences, we welcome the MHRA’s commitment to supporting scientific excellence and innovation. The 2030 Strategy will help people access transformative scientific and technological innovation faster, ultimately leading to better health outcomes.”

Co-Chair of the UKAI Healthcare and Life Sciences Working Group, and VP, Head of R&D Digital and AI at Lundbeck, Adama Ibrahim said:

“The MHRA 2030 Strategy creates a real opportunity to redesign the regulated life-sciences pathway end to end. With commitments including an AI-enabled Clinical Trial Protocol Checker, a 2027 AI Medicines Development Action Plan, a Centre for AI and Digital Health, faster Phase I assessment and greater use of real-world data, the opportunity is bigger than automating individual regulatory steps.

“Pharma, regulators, NHS partners and technology companies should view this strategy as opening up opportunities for collaboration pre-competitively to accelerate reinventing end-to-end workflows, evidence and decisions across regulated areas of the value chain.”

Patients must help shape innovation – and share in its benefits

The strategy commits the MHRA to increasing diversity in clinical studies, strengthening patients’ contributions to regulatory decisions and publishing a refreshed Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Plan this year.

A Women’s Health Plan is also due this year, alongside commitments to improve outcomes for women and close health gaps between ethnic groups.

Minister for Health Innovation James Frith said:

“We want patients to benefit faster from the latest medicines and technologies, while maintaining the highest standards of safety.

“This strategy will help the MHRA keep pace with the latest innovations in AI, data and medicine, while strengthening its ability to crack down on illegal medicines to keep the public safe.

“This will put patients at the heart of regulation, whoever they are and wherever they live — with greater diversity in clinical studies and a Women’s Health Plan to secure better outcomes for women.”

Patient involvement will be most meaningful where it influences the questions developers ask, the outcomes they measure and the judgements made about benefits and risks.

For AI developers, representative evidence should also be treated as central to product quality. Strong overall performance can conceal important differences between patient groups.

The strategy additionally promises substantially greater criminal enforcement capacity and work with social media platforms and online marketplaces to tackle misinformation and prevent harmful products reaching the public.

Chair of Curia’s Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson welcomed the publication of the MHRA strategy after he recently hosted CEO, Lawrence Tallon in Parliament:

“I welcome the MHRA’s 2030 Strategy and its ambition to help patients benefit sooner from advances in AI, personalised medicines and diagnostics, while maintaining rigorous safety standards.

“The proposed Centre for AI and Digital Health offers an important opportunity to give innovators greater clarity and strengthen confidence in these technologies. Success will depend on connecting regulatory progress with NHS commissioning, procurement and workforce readiness, so that promising innovations reach patients and improve everyday care.

“Through Curia’s work with UKHLSI, we look forward to bringing industry, clinicians and policymakers together to support that ambition”.

A joined-up research system could strengthen the UK’s offer to innovators

The MHRA’s plans sit alongside work to reform clinical trials and improve the digital journey for researchers.

Dr Matt Westmore, Chief Executive at the Health Research Authority, said:

“The MHRA’s new strategy outlines an ambitious plan to reshape regulation for a new era, and the HRA will play a key role in helping to deliver that ambition.

“In the past 12 months alone the MHRA and HRA have delivered the largest overhaul of clinical trials legislation for a generation. The updated regulations further protect trial participants, strengthen patient safety and will help accelerate approvals by reducing unnecessary burdens on researchers.

“Alongside reforms to clinical trials legislation the HRA, MHRA and IRAS Partners have been working to transform the digital end-to-end journey for research in the UK. This transformation will ensure that HRA and MHRA processes are aligned and improve the user journey from application right through to patient enrolment.”

Other commitments include supporting human-relevant new approach methodologies, such as organoids, and developing more flexible, risk-proportionate regulation for rare disease therapies.

Internationally, the MHRA intends to expand reliance and recognition routes with trusted regulators, including collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration and continued recognition of CE-marked devices.

Regulatory Innovation Corridors, leadership of the Access Consortium and an annual regulatory science conference are also intended to strengthen collaboration and reduce duplication.

MHRA Chair Professor Anthony Harnden said:

“Our 2030 Strategy sets out our vision for how we will harness extraordinary scientific and technological advances to catalyse innovation in the life sciences and accelerate access to safe and effective treatments for patients.

“This is an ambition we can only achieve by working together, and I would like to thank patients, healthcare professionals, the life sciences industry and our international counterparts for their continued collaboration and shared commitment to protecting the public.”

The next test is turning regulatory ambition into everyday care

The strategy offers a substantial agenda for modernising the MHRA. Its combination of clearer services, stronger surveillance, patient involvement and dedicated AI capability addresses several practical challenges facing health innovators.

Delivery will require the specialist workforce, data infrastructure and operational capacity to sustain those commitments. Progress should be assessed through measurable improvements in regulatory performance, patient safety and access.

A further question sits beyond the regulator’s direct control: how will the NHS prepare to use the innovations that emerge?

A well-regulated AI product still needs a clear clinical purpose, evidence relevant to its intended setting, workable integration and staff able to use it confidently. Developers also need to understand how regulatory evidence connects with the evidence required by NHS decision-makers.

The opportunity is to build a more coherent route from development to deployment, with responsibilities understood at each stage.

Chief Executive of health innovators trade association, UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI), Jo Bekis said:

“The MHRA’s new 2030 Strategy is a positive step toward ensuring regulation keeps pace with advances in AI, personalised medicine and digital health. By focusing on faster access to innovation, and stronger patient involvement, it has the potential to improve outcomes for patients while strengthening the UK’s position as a leader in life sciences.”

Join UKHLSI on 16 November to help shape the AI adoption debate

UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation’s AI Working Group next meets on 16 November, providing an opportunity for members to consider the implications of the MHRA’s strategy and the practical conditions needed for responsible AI adoption.

The proposed Centre for AI and Digital Health, adaptive regulation and greater use of real-world evidence create timely questions for developers, healthcare leaders and policy stakeholders: what guidance will innovators need, how should performance be monitored, and how can regulatory progress translate into improvements for patients?

UKHLSI is inviting organisations interested in contributing to this discussion to register their interest in the AI Working Group and find out more about getting involved ahead of the 16 November meeting.

To help members navigate this landscape, UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI) is introducing a weekly funding and procurement report. Published each Friday, it will bring together relevant opportunities from across the UK and help members see what is available, who it is for and what action may be needed.

The report will cover grants, funding programmes, innovation competitions, and relevant finance schemes, alongside public-sector procurement opportunities. Its scope reflects the breadth of UKHLSI’s membership and the growing connections between health and care delivery, research, technology, industry and public services.

Opportunities may relate to clinical and health services, life sciences research, and development, medtech, diagnostics, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing. The report will also cover mental health, social care, prevention, public health, children, and young people, workforce and skills, community and primary care, digital health, and artificial intelligence.

For each opportunity, the report will set out what the scheme or contract supports, who is eligible to apply or bid, and any important requirements around location, partnerships or consortia. Where information is available, it will include the funding or contract value, key dates, current status and a link to the official source. This should help members make an early assessment of whether an opportunity is relevant and what the next step might be.

“Across healthcare, life sciences, mental health and social care, organisations are developing ideas and services that can improve people’s lives. But finding the right funding or procurement opportunity – and understanding how to pursue it – can be a real challenge. Our weekly report is designed to make that search easier for members, while UKHLSI’s tailored bid support can help them assess opportunities, build partnerships and put forward a stronger case.” Jo Bekis, Chief Executive, UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI)

Funding and procurement are different routes to growth, and the report will treat them accordingly. A grant or competition may support research, development, service improvement or adoption. A procurement opportunity is a commercial route for suppliers to provide services, products or solutions to a public-sector buyer. The report makes clear which type of opportunity is being presented, so members can consider the right route for their organisation.

It will also distinguish between open opportunities and early-stage pipeline notices. Some schemes may be newly announced but not yet accepting applications; some research awards may require an eligible academic or NHS partner; and some public funding may be allocated to local authorities rather than available for direct application. These distinctions matter when deciding whether to act immediately, build a partnership or prepare for a future call.

By bringing key information together in one place, UKHLSI aims to help organisations spot relevant opportunities earlier, understand the requirements and consider how a proposal could fit their capabilities and strategic priorities. Each organisation will still need to check the official guidance and assess the opportunity against its own objectives, capacity and eligibility.

UK public funding and procurement opportunities commercial bid support for members

UKHLSI can also help members assess and pursue suitable opportunities. Support can be tailored and may include reviewing eligibility and requirements, considering whether a bid is a good fit, strengthening the proposal’s case for healthcare and patient impact, identifying potential delivery partners, and advising on how to present an organisation’s capabilities to funders and buyers.

Where useful, UKHLSI can help members understand the policy and NHS context behind an opportunity, make relevant connections across its network and identify specialist support for detailed bid development. The scope of support can be agreed with each member according to their needs and the opportunity.

The weekly report is part of UKHLSI’s work to connect members with practical opportunities and support their contribution to better health and care. Members who would like to discuss an opportunity or explore bid support can contact enquiries@ukhlsi.co.uk.

The review, chaired by British psychoanalyst and clinical psychologist Professor Peter Fonagy, says the rise in ADHD and autism diagnoses needs careful consideration. However, it found that the population-level prevalence of the two neurodevelopmental conditions appears broadly stable.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Fonagy said former health secretary Wes Streeting was “with respect, completely wrong” to suggest there was an overdiagnosis of mental health disorders. The review found that distress among young people had increased, with anxiety and depression contributing to the rise.

It identifies several possible factors, including social media, financial insecurity, uncertainty about the future, poorer sleep and reduced feelings of connection and belonging. The report also warns that diagnosis has increasingly become a narrow route through which people seek support for complex needs.

“Diagnosis remains essential and must be protected – what has to change is that it is no longer the only door through which help can be reached,” Fonagy said.

Government promises earlier support

The Government says its forthcoming Mental Health Strategy will focus on prevention and early intervention, with support available in schools, colleges and communities without people having to wait for a clinical diagnosis.

Health and Social Care Secretary Yvette Cooper said the review showed the importance of earlier help for mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions.

“It is clear that mental health services need to change to focus more on the early support young people need to stay in education or work or keep their lives on track,” she said.

The Government has asked NHS leaders to examine how people can access advice, assessment and treatment more easily. Its announced measures include expanding Mental Health Support Teams to every school and college by 2029, reaching nearly 800,000 additional children and young people this year, and investing £7 million in Early Support Hubs in 2026/27.

It also plans to extend support in the early years and invest in specialists who can work with children in mainstream schools, early years settings and colleges. These measures will sit alongside a £4 billion package for children with special educational needs, which the Government says will improve inclusion, widen access to specialist support and provide training for teachers.

Tighter oversight of ADHD and autism assessments

Alongside earlier support, the Government plans to strengthen oversight of ADHD and autism assessments. It is working towards making all diagnostic assessments a Care Quality Commission-regulated activity, covering NHS-funded, private and self-funded assessments.

The review raised concerns about the consistency and quality of assessments, particularly where services are provided independently. Fonagy said national standards were needed, while recognising that some independent providers deliver excellent services.

The Government will ask the Advertising Standards Authority to consider advertising for ADHD and autism services. NHS England plans to consult on a national tariff for NHS-funded services, covering assessment, post-diagnostic support and follow-ups, with new payment arrangements intended from April 2027. The Government will also work with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to consider the implications of the review for clinical guidance.

Cooper said regulation should help ensure assessments are high quality and that the NHS is not overcharged by independent or private providers.

Fonagy Review suggests support should reflect needs, not labels

The review warns that a diagnosis can sometimes become a label that overshadows a person’s strengths and potential, affecting their experience in education, work and relationships. It calls for better support after diagnosis and for schools, workplaces and public services to respond to people’s needs.

Mental health organisations broadly welcomed the review’s focus on earlier help. Andy Bell, chief executive of the Centre for Mental Health, said:

“More people, and young people especially, are experiencing mental distress and ill health.”

He said the Government’s new strategy was an opportunity to put the recommendations into practice, adding that local government, the NHS, businesses and civil society all had a role in improving mental health.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists also welcomed the emphasis on support before diagnosis, while warning that long waits for assessment and specialist treatment must be addressed. Its president, Professor Subodh Dave, said:

“Those showing initial signs of distress shouldn’t need a diagnosis to access basic levels of support at school, work or within their communities.”

The review highlights the links between health, education and employment. It notes that mental health or autism is a factor for many young people who are not in education, employment or training. Fonagy argues that success should be measured by people’s wellbeing and ability to participate in their communities, education and work—not simply by whether they receive a diagnosis.

The test will be delivery

The review sets out a shift towards support that is earlier, more flexible and based on need, while retaining timely diagnosis and treatment for people who need them. The Government has announced a range of measures, but its full response will be set out in the Mental Health Strategy later this year.

The test will be whether these commitments translate into accessible help in schools and communities, shorter waits for assessment and treatment, and properly supported specialist services. Earlier help should widen the route into care; it must also be matched by the capacity and expertise to support people with complex or severe needs.

The review and the Government’s announced reforms apply to England.

To find out more about UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI) Mental Health Working Group, please contact enquiries@ukhlsi.co.uk

The letter signed by chair of the Obesity Working Group and former Deputy National Medical Director at NHS England Professor Mike Bewick, former Minister of State for Health at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and Chair of Curia’s Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE, Chief Executive of UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI) Jo Bekis, and former Director General of Communications at the Department of Health under former Secretaries of State including Rt Hon Alan Milburn and Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP Sian Jarvis CB, urges the Chancellor to prioritise multi-year funding, a joint DHSC–Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) programme and independent evaluation to test the health and economic value of integrated obesity pathways. It follows the 2026 Parliamentary Obesity Summit and its report, From Access to Outcomes: Building the Treasury and Delivery Case for Integrated Obesity Care.

The policy institute and innovators membership body argue that the policy question has moved on from whether treatments are available to how the health system can deliver sustained, equitable outcomes – and how government can assess the value of doing so.

A cross-government case for investment

The letter seen by Politics UK says obesity care should be considered across health, social care, employment, productivity, welfare, and inequalities. The costs and benefits are spread across these areas, meaning that the organisation funding an intervention may not be the one that later sees the savings or wider benefits.

To illustrate the scale of that challenge, it cites work in West Yorkshire, Humber, and North Yorkshire which estimated the annual regional cost of obesity at £6.16 billion. This included £683 million in NHS treatment, £2.84 billion in productivity losses, £1.58 billion in social care and £1.05 billion in wider economic impacts.

Curia and UKHLSI are calling on the Treasury to establish a cross-government investment framework and a joint Department of Health and Social Care and Department for Work and Pensions “invest-to-work” fund. The proposed fund would support pathways intended to help people remain in or return to employment, with outcomes measured through health, economic inactivity, sickness absence, and productivity.

The request builds on Curia’s 2025 work on obesity policy, which called for recognition of obesity as a chronic, relapsing condition and for long-term investment in care. Since then, the letter notes, government and industry have committed funding to new obesity pathways. The task now is to turn that momentum into sustained outcomes and demonstrable public value.

From access to whole-pathway care

The summit report argues that access to medicines alone will not deliver those outcomes. Obesity is linked to cardiovascular, renal, metabolic and mental health needs, while services can remain divided by different tiers, thresholds, budgets and data systems.

The letter warns that short programmes are poorly suited to a long-term condition. It calls for pathways that combine clinical treatment with psychological, behavioural, digital, and community support – including maintenance and routes back into care.

Community organisations, pharmacies, workplaces and regulated digital providers could help extend access and capacity, the letter says. Their contribution should sit within transparent clinical governance, shared standards and independent evaluation.

Funding to test what works

Curia and UKHLSI are asking for multi-year “invest-to-save” funding so local systems can test integrated, trauma-informed pathways, build workforce capability, and involve community partners without relying on short-term pilots.

They also propose funding independent economic modelling and real-world evaluation using a common dataset. The assessment should separate cash-releasing savings from capacity benefits, costs avoided in future and wider public value.

The letter stresses that the case should be tested rigorously, rather than relying on claims of immediate savings:

“We are not asking Treasury to accept untested claims that every intervention will immediately pay for itself. We are asking it to create the conditions for a disciplined test of affordability, implementation, and return.”

The proposed programme would identify priority groups transparently, establish a credible comparison with what would happen without intervention, and measure clinical, service, workforce, patient-reported and equity outcomes. The signatories say findings should be published even where results are negative or inconclusive.

A route from local delivery to national decisions

The final request is for funding to support a route to wider adoption: a national minimum service standard, a business case and commissioning toolkit for integrated care systems, and a clear decision point on whether approaches should be scaled.

The letter says this would allow the Treasury and NHS to judge where investment produces the greatest benefit, for whom and over what period. It also offers Curia and UKHLSI’s ability to convene clinical leaders, NHS systems, people with lived experience, community organisations, regulated providers, and industry around an independently governed programme.

Find out more

The full report, From Access to Outcomes, sets out the findings of the Parliamentary Obesity Summit and the proposed Strategic Innovation Gateway programme. To discuss the Obesity Working Group or Gateway programme, contact enquiries@ukhlsi.co.uk.

(Photo: Kirsty O’Connor/HM Treasury)

The NHS must find ways to meet growing demand for healthcare, Damian Hinds has said, arguing that technology could help clinicians do more for patients.

Addressing a panel at the Conservative Party Conference on 5 October, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said the expectation that the health service would return to manageable pressure once it had cleared its backlog had not been borne out.

The pressures on the NHS reflect longer-term changes in health and life expectancy, he said. People are living longer, but more are living with chronic and multiple conditions, often requiring treatment over many years. While medical advances have improved outcomes, some treatments are also more costly.

Hinds noted that the UK spends about 11 per cent of GDP on healthcare, broadly comparable with countries including Australia, Canada, France, and Japan. Real-terms spending per head is about twice what it was in 1990, he said, yet demand continues to press against the finite capacity of the health and care workforce.

Technology should give clinicians more time with patients

Hinds argued that new technologies could help shift those constraints by enabling health professionals to do more on behalf of patients. He pointed to the UK’s universities, life sciences industry and technology sector as strengths, alongside the NHS’s national reach and its extensive longitudinal data.

The examples discussed by the panel included faster diagnostics at Moorfields, generative AI tools that could shorten the design and testing of drugs, and personalised medicine informed by genomic data. Hinds also highlighted AI scribe tools, which can reduce the administrative burden on clinicians and give them more time to focus on the person in front of them.

Technology could also support people to live at home for longer and retain greater control over their care, he said. The value of these tools, in his view, lies in how they improve the work of health professionals and the experience of patients, rather than in the technology itself.

Past failures underline the need for careful delivery

Hinds said the opportunities should be pursued alongside a clear understanding of the risks. He invoked the NHS National Programme for IT, which he described as poorly designed and insufficiently informed by frontline staff before it was abandoned at a cost of £10 billion. He also recalled the loss of two discs containing the child benefit database, including bank details.

Those experiences should prompt stronger safeguards, he said, rather than deter the NHS from adopting new tools. Cyber criminals are now a persistent threat, making data security a central consideration in any modernisation programme.

The challenge, Hinds argued, is not simply whether technology exists. Organisations also need the systems and equipment to support it, as well as a culture that is willing to change working practices. That challenge is particularly significant in the NHS, given its size and complexity.

Conservative health team to develop principles

Hinds said the Conservative shadow health team would scrutinise the Government’s approach while developing its own prospectus for the next election. Technology, he said, cuts across the team’s policy areas, from hospital care and primary care to public health, mental health, social care, life sciences and research.

The team would hear from experts, clinicians and technology leaders as it works out the principles that should guide deployment. One priority, he said, is to ensure that technology is not seen by frontline staff as creating more work. It should improve the time and attention available to patients.

He also said effective partnerships would be needed across the public, private, independent and not-for-profit sectors, with the UK looking internationally to work with leaders in the field. Patient safety must be the overriding priority, he said, with data security and privacy treated as essential parts of that commitment.

Conservative Party Conference summary: a choice between waiting and leading

Hinds concluded that the UK could choose to be a “second mover”, waiting to see how other countries use these technologies before adopting them, or build on its existing strengths and act sooner.

The NHS’s national scale and data, together with the country’s universities, life sciences and technology sectors, put Britain in a strong position to pursue the opportunities, he said. The task for government and health leaders is to make sure innovation is introduced in a way that works for patients and the people caring for them.

Hinds’ remarks set out a case for faster adoption, paired with practical attention to workforce experience, implementation and public trust. The measure of success, he argued, will be whether technology helps the NHS deliver better care.

(Photo: Conservative Party)

Effective treatments for obesity are available, and national policy is moving. However, a recent Parliamentary summit and report questions whether people can access the right support at the right time, and whether services can sustain that support over the long-term.

Drawing on its 2026 Parliamentary Obesity Summit, a new report from policy institute Curia, commissioned by UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI), sets out how to meet that challenge. From Access to Outcomes brings together views from clinicians, NHS and local government leaders, policymakers, industry, community organisations and people with lived experience. It turns those discussions into a programme for better care and a stronger economic case for investment.

The report’s central argument is that obesity care cannot be judged by medicines costs or short-term weight change alone. Its value should be assessed through a wider set of outcomes: cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic health; service use; mental wellbeing; patient safety and trust; workforce participation; inequalities; and the long-term cost of inaction.

UKHLSI Chief Executive Jo Bekis puts the emphasis on implementation:

“The next challenge is implementation.”

Care designed around people and pathways

The summit heard that obesity is a chronic, relapsing condition, often connected to cardiovascular, renal, metabolic and mental health needs. Yet services are frequently organised in separate tiers, with different thresholds, budgets, referral routes, and data systems.

For patients, that can mean delays, repeated assessments, and gaps between services. Short-term programmes can also sit uneasily alongside a condition that may require continuing support, maintenance, and the ability to return to care when circumstances change.

The report calls for integrated pathways that bring together clinical treatment, behavioural and psychological support, digital care, and community-based help. They should be personalised to people’s needs and circumstances, with clear routes between neighbourhood teams, pharmacies, specialist services, and trusted community organisations.

That means widening the idea of where care happens. The summit heard examples of health support delivered in places such as pubs, barber shops, workplaces and community settings – reaching people who may not engage with conventional services. These partners need to be connected to safe clinical pathways and properly supported.

Dr Rani Khatib, National Specialty Adviser for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at NHS England, summed up the principle:

“Manage people, do not manage conditions.”

Trust and safety are part of effective care

The report highlights the way people experience care affects whether they seek help, engage with treatment, and return when they need further support.

Summit participants described how stigma, blame and previous difficult experiences can undermine trust before treatment even begins. The report cites the Numan State of Obesity Report 2025, which found that 68 per cent of surveyed people living with overweight or obesity had felt judged by a healthcare professional because of their weight.

“The cost of doing nothing is the human cost.”

Emm Irving, former Head of Improving Population Health, West Yorkshire Health and Care Partnership

Trauma-informed, non-stigmatising practice is therefore both an ethical responsibility and a practical part of designing effective services. The report recommends that pathways monitor whether people feel listened to, respected and safe, alongside clinical outcomes and service activity.

It also calls for maintenance and re-entry to be treated as parts of care, not signs of failure. A pathway should give people continuity and a route back to support without making them start again from the beginning.

Making an honest economic case

The summit examined why investment in prevention and earlier care can be difficult to secure. Costs may fall to one organisation, while benefits emerge later or elsewhere – in fewer hospital admissions, reduced social care demand, improved workforce participation, lower sickness absence, or stronger productivity.

The report calls for a Treasury-facing case that is transparent about where value arises and when. It recommends distinguishing between cash-releasing savings, capacity freed up for other care, future costs avoided, and wider economic and social benefits. It also argues for realistic time horizons and scenario analysis, rather than promising that every intervention will immediately pay for itself.

To build that case, the report proposes a common outcomes framework covering clinical measures, service use, patient experience, treatment sustainability, workforce, and economic outcomes, equity, and delivery costs. Weight change can be one measure but should not define success on its own.

Evidence should be built through delivery. Strategic Innovation Gateways would bring local NHS systems and their partners together to assess readiness, design pathways, agree measures and evaluate what works under real-world conditions. A small number of demonstrators could help show which approaches benefit which groups, at what cost and over what timescale.

The report proposes a 12–18-month programme combining local demonstrations with national evidence, workforce learning, community partnership and policy development. Its intended outputs include a Treasury-facing economic model, a shared outcomes and evaluation framework, practical implementation guidance and recommendations for wider commissioning.

Join UKHLSI’s Obesity Working Group

The report proposes a National Obesity Working Group, bringing partners together to agree priorities, measures and a shared programme of work. The proposed format includes four virtual meetings, one or two face-to-face development events, task-and-finish priorities and an annual progress report.

UKHLSI is inviting organisations and individuals with relevant experience to get involved. This includes NHS and local government leaders, clinicians, researchers, community, and voluntary organisations, people with lived experience, and partners from life sciences and digital health.

Contributions could include helping shape priorities and outcomes, sharing evidence, supporting community and lived-experience participation, or identifying practical challenges in local delivery. The report also proposes separate routes for involvement in Gateway projects, evidence and evaluation, and workforce learning. These routes would have their own scopes and governance.

The programme is designed to protect the independence of its work. The report proposes transparent, pooled support and clear safeguards: participation or sponsorship would not confer influence over clinical decisions, recommendations or public findings, or guarantee a seat, NHS commission or supplier preference. People with lived experience and community organisations should be funded partners in co-design and evaluation, not simply consultees.

UKHLSI is now looking to build the partnerships needed to take this work forward. To discuss joining the Obesity Working Group or contributing to the Strategic Innovation Gateway programme, contact enquiries@ukhlsi.co.uk.

As Jo Bekis said at the summit:

“When we say action, we mean action.”

As Chair of the Independent Review into Young People and Work, he spoke at a discussion organised by the University of Liverpool’s Civic Health Innovation Labs (CHIL) in Liverpool at the Labour Party Conference, bringing together leaders from health, local government, universities, social care, and business. The former Secretary of State for Health argued that technological advances could help public services intervene earlier. But delivering change would also require stronger local powers, different funding arrangements, and greater accountability for shared outcomes.

Milburn, who is leading a review into young people not in education, employment, or training, described a generational crisis driven by the collision of economic change, and rising health needs.

The discussion, chaired by CHIL Director Professor Iain Buchan, focused on closing the gap between what public services know about people’s circumstances and what they do to improve them.

A Generational Crisis at the Intersection of Health and Work

Milburn argued that youth inactivity cannot be understood through employment policy alone.

The decline of traditional industries and entry-level jobs has made it harder for young people to take their first steps into work. Alongside this, increasing mental health needs are creating additional barriers to participation.

He cautioned against treating these challenges simply as a consequence of COVID-19. The pandemic intensified problems that were already emerging, leaving services facing a combination of longstanding economic disadvantage and changing health needs.

For Milburn, the central weakness is that government continues to organise its response through separate departmental structures, while people’s difficulties cross those boundaries.

Health, education, employment, and family circumstances interact throughout a young person’s life. A response built around individual services risks missing that wider picture.

Local Places Must Have the Power to Deliver

Milburn called for a clearer distinction between national frameworks and local delivery.

National government has a role in establishing the conditions for change, but interventions must reflect the communities they serve. Even neighbouring city regions can have different economies, demographics, and employment opportunities.

His argument was that devolution must extend beyond transferring responsibilities. Local leaders need the authority, resources, and capacity to bring services together around people.

However, he warned that moving existing structures to a regional level would achieve little if the same divisions remained.

“If we do that, honestly, nothing will really change.” – Rt Hon Alan Milburn, Chair of the Independent Review into Young People and Work

The challenge is therefore to change how institutions work together, alongside where decisions are made.

Roundtable participants also highlighted the need for stable funding and stronger local institutions. Young people who have experienced disappointing encounters with schools, employment services, or healthcare may already distrust the organisations intended to support them.

From Knowing the Risks to Acting Earlier

A central theme of Milburn’s contribution was that public services already hold information that could support earlier intervention.

He pointed to longitudinal research in Bradford, describing how researchers could identify early patterns associated with a greater likelihood of young people later becoming disengaged from education or employment.

Schools and other services also see warning signs, including deteriorating attendance, changes in behaviour and unmet support needs. The difficulty is turning those observations into coordinated help.

“It’s one thing to know, it’s another thing to do.” – Rt Hon Alan Milburn

Participants discussed how information held separately by education, health, local government and benefits services could provide a more complete understanding of a family’s needs.

The ambition was to reduce repeated assessments, identify gaps in support and act before difficulties become entrenched.

Milburn acknowledged the importance of confidentiality and appropriate governance, while arguing that decisions about data use must also consider the benefits of timely support.

AI Must Support Relationships and Public Trust

The discussion positioned AI and connected data as tools to improve people’s lives, with their value depending on the actions they enable, and the public trust needed to use them at scale.

Participants stressed that identifying someone who may need help is only the beginning. Services must have the staff, skills and trusted relationships to respond.

Community-based approaches offered practical examples. Representatives described parent champions working with families, alongside opportunities for young people to support their peers and help services build stronger connections with communities.

Social care was also identified as a potential route into meaningful employment for some young people, provided employers offer appropriate training, support and opportunities to progress. Participants noted that many young people bring valuable lived experience that could enhance their contribution to the sector, helping to create more understanding, person-centred services that better reflect the needs of those they support.

Public involvement will be central to the next stage of the Liverpool work. Professor Buchan outlined plans to take the discussion into citizens’ panels, allowing communities to help shape how data and AI are used across health, work and opportunity. This approach is outlined further in the Keep Britain Working prospectus on data and AI uses, which was launched at the roundtable.

Funding Must Follow Shared Outcomes

Milburn’s closing message was that better information must be matched by changes to funding, workforce capability and accountability.

Connected data can reveal where intervention would make the greatest difference. But services will struggle to respond if budgets and incentives remain confined within organisational boundaries.

He also called for an honest assessment of the skills required to deliver reform.

“Some of those skill sets don’t exist, and some of the skill sets that we’ve got are now redundant.” – Rt Hon Alan Milburn

His review is considering financial incentives that would give local authorities a stronger stake in improving outcomes, with recognition and reward for successful action.

For Liverpool and other city regions, the opportunity is to demonstrate how health, education, employment and community services can work together to prevent disadvantage.

The test will be whether earlier insight leads to earlier support: helping more young people stay connected to education, enter employment and build healthier lives.

(Photos: Gareth Jones Photographer )

The Secretary of State for Health and Care’s speech today set out important priorities for health and social care. Her recognition that NHS recovery depends on what happens in our communities, alongside what happens in hospitals, deserves support. As a former Health Minister, I know how much patients, families, and staff need these ambitions to translate into practical improvements.

Curia’s approach is cross-party and focused on delivery. We will welcome measures that improve outcomes, while asking the questions needed to make them work. This week’s announcements on social care by the Prime Minister, and by Yvette Cooper on maternity, early years, and domestic abuse provide opportunities for progress. However, without wishing to sound like a broken record, they also require clear funding, responsibilities, and implementation plans.

Supporting the Social Care Workforce

The commitment to a social care workforce plan is particularly welcome. Care workers need meaningful career pathways, specialist training and recognition of their professional contribution. Expanding academy places could help young people enter rewarding employment, provided recruitment is accompanied by support, supervision and opportunities to develop.

Fair pay and greater retirement security are worthwhile objectives. However, providers need to understand how the proposed pay agreement and collective pension scheme will be funded. The £500 million identified for the agreement’s first year must connect with commissioning arrangements that allow employers to meet their obligations sustainably. We also need clarity about subsequent years.

The proposed National Care Service raises wider questions about eligibility, accountability and affordability. Those questions cannot be deferred indefinitely.

Equally, people needing support today cannot wait for a future structure to emerge.

Improving access to care, supporting unpaid carers and enabling safe discharge must remain immediate priorities.

These are all questions we will be asking as part of our workforce session this Friday on the NHS Modernisation Bill programme.

Making Maternity Safety a System Priority

Cooper was right to place maternity safety at the centre of her agenda. New standards covering baby loss and post-pregnancy care, alongside an independent commissioner, could strengthen accountability. Their value will depend on whether concerns are heard, staff are supported and lessons lead to consistent changes in practice.

Women’s experiences must shape that work. Persistent inequalities demand attention, including the disproportionate risks facing Black mothers. Our recent Women’s Health and FemTech Summit reinforced the importance of connecting patient experience, clinical expertise and innovation. National expectations must be matched by the capacity to deliver locally.

Prevention Starts with Families and Communities

In the context of our work with South and West Yorkshire ICBs earlier this year, the expansion of health support through family hubs also deserve thought.

Parental mental health, feeding support and early relationships influence family wellbeing. Delivery should connect with health visiting and existing community services, with particular attention to families who struggle to access help. Prevention needs sustained investment and measurable outcomes.

The public health response to violence against women and girls is another significant commitment. Steps to Safety could help primary care identify abuse earlier and connect survivors with specialist services. Training must be accompanied by safe referral pathways and sufficient capacity. Survivors should receive effective support after disclosure, without encountering another waiting list.

As Curia has highlighted over many years, neighbourhood health offers a way to bring these priorities together. Local partnerships can identify unmet needs and help people remain well at home. Successful approaches require workforce capacity, appropriate information sharing and funding that supports collaboration. Evidence should guide expansion, recognising that different communities face different challenges.

Funding and Accountability Will Determine Success

Cooper also highlighted the potential of science and technology. Turning that potential into patient benefit requires clear routes for evidence generation, assurance, commissioning, and adoption.

Through Curia’s NHS Modernisation Bill programme, we are examining how reform can improve frontline delivery. Today’s speech strengthens the case for clear accountabilities, practical workforce planning, and an implementation approach that involves those delivering services.

Ahead of the Budget, government must explain how these commitments will be resourced and measured. Patients need timely care; staff need the tools to deliver it; innovators need workable routes into services. Our test will be whether these announcements make those outcomes easier to achieve across every community.

Find out more

To find out more about about Curia and UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI), please contact team@curiauk.com and enquiries@ukhlsi.co.uk.

Burnham described the current system as “as unfair as American healthcare” and said he wanted to “rip the plaster off” to fix it. He also drew attention to the care workforce, saying those who looked after his father had shown “humour, humanity and skill”, despite working for “poverty pay”.

The proposal would mark a major shift from the current system, where access to publicly funded adult social care is means-tested. People with assets above £23,250 generally have to pay the full cost of their care themselves. The King’s Fund says total spending on adult social care in England reached £34.5bn in 2024/25, but that figure covers the existing service, not the additional cost of making care universal and free at the point of use.

How much more the state would need to spend depends on the eventual design of the service.

Voters would be asked to back the plan

Burnham said the reforms would not be introduced before the next general election, currently expected in 2029. Labour would instead put its proposals to voters in its next manifesto, with implementation to follow in the next Parliament if it secured a mandate.

He said the service would be funded by “everybody”, with everyone covered, but suggested the funding model might differ from the NHS. Baroness Casey’s review is expected to advise on how the system could be funded.

However, the Prime Minister stopped short of setting out a funding plan. He said the estimated annual cost of £18bn was “not as high” as suggested but offered no alternative figure. He said the reform would need to be carefully designed so it did not put extra strain on public finances.

Could the triple lock be part of the debate?

Burnham did not announce changes to the State Pension triple lock. Under the current policy, pensions rise each year by whichever is highest: earnings growth, inflation or 2.5%.

However, the question has been raised because the current Labour manifesto commits to retaining the triple lock during this Parliament, while Burnham says his care reforms would be put to voters at the next election. Could Burnham’s comments hint that a future reform of the triple lock could help fund social care?

The triple lock is only one of several options raised in the wider funding debate. The Health Foundation identifies possibilities including higher general taxation, changes to taxes on wealth or estates, or extending National Insurance contributions beyond retirement age. Each would distribute the cost differently between taxpayers, pensioners, people who need care and their families. None has been adopted as the Government’s plan for the National Care Service.

Changing the triple lock could moderate future growth in pension spending, but it would not automatically create a dedicated care fund. It would also affect pensioners’ incomes over time, with the impact depending on the replacement uprating formula and any protections for people on lower incomes. This makes the issue both a question of public finances and of how the costs and benefits are shared between generations.

A politically difficult settlement

There is a history behind the sensitivity. When Burnham proposed a National Care Service as Health Secretary in 2009, the funding model included a levy on estates after death. Conservatives branded it a “death tax”, and the proposal was abandoned after the 2010 election. Burnham said on Sunday that nothing was off the table, while making clear he was not simply reviving that earlier plan.

Times have however changed, and the political realities are now starker – with political consensus for change. However, the devil is clearly in the detail.

A change to the triple lock remains speculation, alongside other possible funding approaches; Burnham has not confirmed any of them.

Final thought

It is a brave Prime Minister to tie his political colours to a social care mast. Many Prime Minister has failed to deliver on this issue, and much political capital has been spent on failing to deliver a solution.

A universal care service could reduce the risk of families being overwhelmed by care costs, but universal cover also means the funding choices will affect people who do not currently draw on social care. The political test will be whether Burnham can explain a fair and credible settlement – and secure public backing for it – without leaving the central cost question unanswered.

The devil on this issue is in the detail. The Prime Minister will need to demonstrate that he will be able to deliver this without rebellion on the backbenches.

One former Cabinet Minister questioned earlier whether this should be a priority without a focus on growth. Without tax increases or a growing economy, sufficient funding is not going to be forthcoming to deliver the Prime Minister’s vision.

All eyes on the Prime Minister’s first Party Conference speech as Leader of the Labour Party to see if he will set out any further detail.

(Photo: Lauren Hurley/No 10 Downing Street)

Thalamos provides a practical example of how structured digital workflows can replace paper-based processes, improve the secure sharing of statutory information and give professionals a clearer, real-time view of a patient’s journey. By creating a reliable audit trail and highlighting emerging patterns, the platform can support earlier intervention, better multi-agency working and the use of the least restrictive options.

This article was sponsored by UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI) member Thalamos.

To find out more about Thalamos, visit: www.thalamos.co.uk

Across mental health services, there is no shortage of commitment or data. Yet the ability to consistently translate that into safe, coordinated and timely care remains constrained by how the system itself is designed.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the delivery of Mental Health Act (MHA) processes.

People subject to the Mental Health Act often move between emergency departments, mental health services, police custody, ambulance services, local authorities and independent providers within the same episode of care. Each part of the pathway may hold different information relevant to risk, legal status, safeguarding or previous intervention.

Decisions are made under pressure, with immediate and profound consequences. Yet the infrastructure supporting those decisions has not kept pace. Information remains fragmented, processes are often manual and visibility of a patient’s journey is limited at the point it matters most.

Across the system, a consistent theme has emerged. Fragmentation, administrative burden and a lack of joined-up data are not peripheral issues. They are among the primary barriers to delivering better care. They limit time with patients, constrain clinical decision-making and reduce the system’s ability to identify and respond to risk early. In this context, delays are not simply inefficient. They can change outcomes.

System-Level Pressures

At the same time, there is a clear direction of travel. Services are moving from reactive to proactive care, from isolated systems to integrated data environments, and from administrative burden to time for care. Delivering that shift requires more than incremental improvement. It requires redesigning the processes that shape how care is delivered.

Digitisation of MHA workflows is one of the most immediate opportunities to do exactly that.

Structured digital workflows provide a practical example of how services can move from fragmented processes towards more integrated, data-driven models of care. By standardising how statutory information is captured, accessed and shared, organisations are able to create greater continuity across pathways that have traditionally relied on disconnected systems, manual communication and retrospective oversight.

A Structured, Real-Time Approach to MHA Workflows

eMHA by Thalamos has been developed to address these challenges by introducing a structured, end-to-end approach to managing MHA processes.

Every statutory step is captured, validated and shared within a single, purpose-built environment. Digital forms enforce completeness through mandatory fields, timestamps and role-based sign-off, creating a clear audit trail and reducing ambiguity.

More importantly, information is no longer dispersed. Digitising MHA workflows creates a structured source of truth that can be shared more effectively across organisational boundaries. Through eMHA by Thalamos, organisations are able to provide authorised access to key statutory information, even where partner agencies are not full users of the platform. This provides immediate context in situations where time and clarity are critical.

In practice, this reduces reliance on email, telephone calls and manual document transfer, while maintaining appropriate governance and auditability. The result is a more coordinated response, where professionals are better informed at the point decisions are made, without requiring full system alignment across every organisation involved.

Given the legal and clinical sensitivity of Mental Health Act processes, governance and information assurance are critical. eMHA by Thalamos incorporates role-based access controls, full audit trails, structured permissions and secure sharing capabilities designed to support information governance requirements while maintaining staff confidence in how sensitive information is accessed and managed.

Organisations deploying structured digital MHA workflows have reported:

• Elimination of common errors and legal issues associated with paper-based processes.
• Significant reductions in time spent locating documents, re-entering information, validating forms and manually coordinating statutory workflows across teams.
• Faster progression through key stages of the MHA pathway and more coordinated, multi-agency care.
• Improved confidence that decisions are being made with the full available context and support the least restrictive options.

This directly supports a central system ambition: reducing administrative burden and releasing more time for patient care, while building the data foundations required for future innovation, including AI-enabled insight.

From Retrospective Oversight to Proactive Safety

One of the most significant shifts enabled by digitisation is the move from retrospective review to real-time insight.

When MHA activity is captured in a structured format, organisations can identify patterns that would otherwise remain hidden. Repeated short-term detentions, an increasing frequency of crises or delays in key processes can be recognised as they emerge. This does not replace clinical judgement. It strengthens it.

By surfacing clearer, more timely statutory information at the point of assessment or review, eMHA supports professionals to make better-informed decisions within fast-moving and high-pressure environments.

At an organisational level, structured data provides greater visibility of variation, operational pressures and areas where additional intervention or oversight may be required. This supports a more proactive approach to governance, quality improvement and patient safety across the wider mental health system.

System-Level Pressures and Digitisation

In this sense, eMHA by Thalamos illustrates a wider principle underpinning digital transformation across mental health services. Meaningful transformation is not achieved by layering technology onto existing complexity. It comes from redesigning critical workflows and integrating with existing systems so that care becomes safer, more coordinated, more transparent and less administratively burdensome for both patients and professionals.

Thalamos are members of UK Healthcare and Life Sciences Innovation (UKHLSI): Find out more.