The Global State of Patient Safety: Where the UK Stands and What the Data Tells Us
Patient safety data exists in abundance, but it rarely tells a complete story. In this session from the Connected Health & Care Summit 2026, John Illingworth, Senior Advisor at Imperial College London’s Institute of Global Health Innovation, presents findings from the Global State of Patient Safety 2025 report, a partnership with Patient Safety Watch. Drawing on 108 indicators across 200 countries, the session reveals where the UK ranks against OECD peers, which trends are worsening, and what four leading national patient safety systems are doing differently.
Watch Imperial College London present the global patient safety ranking, key trends in mental health, neonatal care and waiting times, and what the UK can learn from Norway, Australia, Ireland and the Netherlands.
What the research found and why it matters
The Global State of Patient Safety report collects and analyses 108 indicators from sources including the WHO, World Bank, OECD and the Lancet Global Burden of Disease study. The headline findings presented in the session were:
- The UK ranked 21st out of 38 OECD countries in the patient safety ranking, with little change from the previous year. Norway ranked first for two consecutive years
- If the UK matched Switzerland’s treatable mortality rate, 22,000 fewer deaths could have occurred in 2021
- Excess mortality rates for people with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia have risen 21% and 41% respectively across OECD countries since 2015
- Global neonatal mortality has fallen 46% since 2000, but UK rates have plateaued since approximately 2015 and started to rise, driven by preterm births diverging from the OECD average
- The UK is a major outlier on waiting times for complex procedures, and we know very little about the safety of patients while they are waiting
The data challenges and what four countries are doing differently
John Illingworth is candid about the limitations of the data. Only a third of indicators are reported by lower-income countries. Around a third of the data relates to care more than two years old. Low numbers are not necessarily good numbers because of under-reporting. And approximately 60% of outcome indicators relate to maternal and neonatal health, creating a structural skew.
The report complements its quantitative analysis with qualitative research, including 12 interviews with international patient safety leaders across eight countries and four in-depth case studies. Australia is continuously adapting its national quality and safety standards and shifting from compliance to building conditions for safe care. Ireland has made open disclosure the underpinning principle of its system, using high-profile failures to accelerate progress. The Netherlands has used large-scale national improvement programmes to build genuine staff engagement. Norway enshrined the use of data for improvement in legislation and complemented it with cultural and leadership development, though its former health minister warned that accumulating regulations can create unintended complexity.
What this means for the UK and who it is relevant to
The session draws out three areas where the UK should be paying closer attention. First, the care and outcomes of people with severe mental illness. People with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder die approximately 20 years before the general population, and the trend is worsening across OECD countries. Second, neonatal mortality, where the global story is positive but the UK is diverging from the OECD average, driven by deaths due to preterm births. John Illingworth argues there are significant gains to be made by tackling inequities in care during pregnancy, not just on the labour ward. Third, waiting times, where the UK is a major outlier for complex procedures and where we know almost nothing about the safety or harm experienced by patients while they wait.
The report proposes a framework of 16 ambitions for a safe national patient safety system, organised across four domains: strategy and governance, implementation and learning, involvement and capability, and data and measurement. The next report, the National State of Patient Safety Report for 2026, will launch in January 2027 with a special focus on unwarranted variation in safe care.
This session is relevant to patient safety leads, medical directors, governance teams, quality improvement leaders, chief nursing officers, policymakers, regulators and anyone responsible for understanding how the UK’s patient safety performance compares internationally and where improvement efforts should be directed.
Frequently asked questions
The session is presented by John Illingworth, Senior Advisor at Imperial College London’s Institute of Global Health Innovation. The work is a partnership with Patient Safety Watch, a charity founded by Jeremy Hunt MP and led by James Titcombe. The partnership has been running for five years, alternating annually between a national and a global state of patient safety report. The reports use publicly available data to draw insights for improvement and to influence policy and practice.
The dashboard is a publicly available tool containing 108 patient safety indicators collected from sources including the WHO, World Bank, OECD and the Lancet Global Burden of Disease study. It covers approximately 200 countries, with some data going back 25 years. Users can filter by region, view trends over time, compare countries, and access a snapshot of 24 core indicators for individual country performance.
The ranking uses four indicators: maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, treatable mortality (deaths avoidable through timely and effective healthcare, including sepsis and blood clots) and adverse effects of medical treatment. Norway ranked first for two consecutive years. The UK ranked 21st out of 38 countries. If the UK matched Switzerland’s treatable mortality rate, an estimated 22,000 fewer deaths could have occurred in 2021.
Excess mortality rates for people with have risen 21% for bipolar disorder and 41% for schizophrenia across OECD countries since 2015. People with severe mental illness generally die approximately 20 years before the general population. Both trend lines are moving upwards. John Illingworth highlights this as an area that broadens the boundaries of what the patient safety and wider healthcare community should be addressing.
Globally, neonatal mortality rates have fallen 46% since 2000. However, UK rates have plateaued since approximately 2015 and appear to have started rising. The primary driver is deaths due to preterm births, where the UK is diverging from the OECD average. John Illingworth argues that significant gains could be made by tackling inequities in care during pregnancy rather than focusing solely on what happens on the labour ward.
Australia is continuously adapting its national quality and safety standards and shifting from compliance to building conditions for safe care. Ireland has made open disclosure its underpinning principle, setting the benchmark for involving patients in designing and implementing policy. The Netherlands has used large-scale national improvement programmes to drive change, with genuine staff engagement rather than top-down mandates. Norway enshrined the use of data for improvement in legislation and complemented it with cultural and leadership development, though its former health minister warned that accumulating regulations creates unintended complexity.
The report proposes 16 ambitions for a safe national patient safety system, organised across four domains. Strategy and governance covers national strategy, systemic investigation capacity and whether safety is embedded across all relevant policies. Implementation and learning covers improvement methods and the balance between reactive and proactive approaches. Involvement and capability covers patient partnership and workforce skills. Data and measurement covers the balance between leading and lagging indicators and the role of patient feedback.
John Illingworth highlights several limitations. Only a third of indicators are reported by lower-income countries, creating poor representation in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Around a third of the data relates to care more than two years old. Low numbers may reflect under-reporting rather than good performance. Approximately 60% of outcome indicators relate to maternal and neonatal health. And patient safety data generally gives a better picture of lagging indicators than leading ones.
