NEWS
Taskforce urges action on screening workforce
A major report launched from the Women’s Cancer Screening Taskforce has issued a clear call to Government and NHS leaders: prioritise investment in the workforce behind breast and cervical cancer screening to deliver earlier diagnoses and improve outcomes for women across the UK. The Taskforce, convened by Hologic and made up of senior NHS clinicians, national programme leaders and professional
bodies – including the Institute of Biomedical Science (IBMS), warns that persistent workforce shortages, slow adoption of digital tools and barriers to screening access are placing the cancer screening system under significant strain.
The report identifies three critical areas
where action is needed: accelerating adoption of innovation; strengthening the workforce; and improving equitable access.
Among its ten recommendations, the
Taskforce urges: n A national public health campaign focused on the importance of early cancer diagnosis, co-designed with communities and informed by behavioural insights.
n Dedicated funding to support NHS Trusts to work with local community organisations to deliver culturally sensitive outreach.
n Clear timelines for screening technology assessments and approvals, to ensure patients and clinicians have access to the best available tools without delay.
n Protected time in clinicians’ job plans for training, research and professional development, applied consistently across NHS Trusts.
The report concludes that supporting the cancer screening workforce is essential to delivering timely, accurate diagnoses and improving women’s health. It calls for leadership, investment and accountability to ensure screening services are modern, equitable and fit for the future
8
Reaction to the NHS 10 Year Plan
Following the publication of the Government’s long-awaited 10 Year Plan for the future of the National Health Service, professional and industry bodies have been responding.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer launched the
10 Year Plan on 3 July, with the creation of around 200 ‘neighbourhood health centres’ making the headlines. But the plan has been criticised as it was published without a planned chapter on how its proposed changes will be delivered, and little other detail on staffing – with a new workforce plan for the health service expected to be announced later this year.
The IBMS, RCPath and BIVDA have all
issues responses to the plan. n IBMS: In a response statement on its website, the Institute of Biomedical Science (IBMS) commented: “The shift of diagnostics closer to patients through “Neighbourhood Health Services” must be underpinned by a clear focus on quality, regulation and safety. Biomedical scientists play a central role in ensuring that services meet the highest standards across all phases of the diagnostic pathway. This will be essential as care expands beyond traditional hospital settings. The success of the Plan will also rely on the continued development of training pathways and professional education. Investment in the future biomedical science workforce will ensure that staff are equipped to deliver safe, effective and equitable diagnostic services.” n BIVDA: The British In Vitro Diagnostics
Association (BIVDA), described the plan as “ambitious, systemic,
and radical”, further commenting: “The announcement of neighbourhood health centres should see diagnostics placed closer to patients, enabling a truly one-stop service. The focus on a ‘genomics health service’ offers an increased role for a technology the UK is a genuine world leader in. More broadly, better procurement and funding models will help resolve the perennial issue of diagnostics being assessed on the basis of cost, rather than value. As long as the Government provides support for our industry – by procuring our products effectively, regulating them proportionately, and creating an ecosystem where the UK is a priority market for delivery, not just development – the diagnostics industry will be a key partner in ensuring success.” n RCPath: In response to the plan, Dr Bernie Croal, President of The Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) said: “Bringing vital diagnostic services closer to people’s neighbourhoods has the potential to reduce delays and enable quicker clinical decision making. This will provide greater convenience and better health outcomes. The College welcomes the publication of this plan at a time when NHS services face significant pressure, with many patients still experiencing delays.”
SHOT Transfusion Safety Standards
Serious Hazards Of Transfusion (SHOT) has published its new Transfusion Safety Standards, covering various aspects of patient care and staff wellbeing. The SHOT Transfusion Safety Standards have been produced to promote and ensure safe, effective transfusions by identifying risks, implementing strategies that create a safer environment for everyone involved, contributing to better patient outcomes, staff wellbeing and overall system safety. The new Standards cover eight key areas – from governance and haemovigilance to staff training, IT systems, and patient involvement. SHOT is the UK’s independent,
professionally-led haemovigilance scheme analysing transfusion errors and reactions
submitted annually since 1996 to identify areas for improvement to optimise safety. Haemovigilance reporting and learning from reports submitted contribute to improving patient safety. These reports provide a mechanism to identify risks so that all healthcare organisations can implement interventions to reduce these. Serial Annual SHOT Reports indicate a worrying trend with more than 80% of reports related to avoidable errors. The SHOT Transfusion Safety Standards have been produced to address the recurring trends identified from the submitted reports and to embed a proactive approach to enhance safety. Read the new Standards at:
www.shotuk.org/transfusion- safety/transfusion-safety-standards/.
AUGUST 2025
WWW.PATHOLOGYINPRACTICE.COM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
