Patient safety is not just about sterile equipment and clinical accuracy, also about transparency, trust, and informed choice
Every year the World Health Organization selects a theme for Patient Safety Day - something urgent, often under-discussed, and always crucial to the integrity of our healthcare systems.
Last year, in 2024, the theme was “Engaging patients for patient safety” with a sharp focus on diagnostic errors, a silent epidemic that often unfolds in the shadows of clinical care. This year, 2025, the spotlight shifts to maternal and neonatal safety, reminding us of the vulnerabilities that persist at the very beginning of life.
Every September, these themes rise, ripple through the global health community, and then too often dissolve quietly. Which made me wonder: Do we really act on these themes once the day passes? Or do they simply give us something to tweet about, until the next one comes along?
As a patient advocate, I’ve sat in far too many rooms where "patient safety" was a PowerPoint slide, never a policy priority. But last year, I found myself part of something different. Something that stuck. And I’m proud to say: Yes, something did come out of last year’s theme.
When Silence Is Risk
For most of 2024, my team and I at DakshamA Health immersed ourselves in a deeply uncomfortable investigation: the quiet and often unspoken practice of reusing single-use medical devices (SUDs) in hospitals across India.
At first glance, it sounds like a contradiction. Single-use means… well, single use. But reality is messier. Faced with rising costs, inconsistent supply chains, and a growing pressure to "do more with less," many hospitals have begun reprocessing critical devices like catheters, guidewires, surgical tools, often without patient knowledge, let alone consent.
What made this even more troubling is how invisible it was. Patients didn’t know. Most regulators didn’t have clear data. Some hospitals had no documented procedures at all. It became clear to us that diagnostic error, last year’s global theme, wasn’t just about missed or late diagnosis, it was also about what gets overlooked inside the system, quietly normalized until someone gets hurt.
Listening, Not Assuming
We didn’t go in with assumptions. We started by listening to patients, cardiologists, legal experts, regulators, hospital administrators. We filed RTIs to public hospitals and ministries asking the most basic questions: Do you have a policy on reuse? How do you ensure safety? Do you inform patients?
Most said no. Or didn’t respond at all.
We held webinars with national and international experts, some who had been calling for reform for years. One speaker reminded us how, in the U.S., any reprocessed device must carry a label and meet FDA standards as stringent as new devices. In India? Many reused devices were simply cleaned in-house, with no tracking system, no usage limit, and no legal clarity.
At one point, I remember thinking: We don’t just have a patient safety issue, we have a patient dignity issue.
In collaboration with our regional patient advocacy groups, we began speaking with patients who had undergone high-risk cardiovascular procedures. Their responses weren’t angry, they were earnest. Most had no idea whether the tools used during their surgery were new or reused.
Some had excellent outcomes. Some had complications. But what stayed with me were the words of a young man recovering from a cardiac procedure who said, “If I had known, I may have still agreed. But I deserved to know.”
He was right. Patient safety is not just about sterile equipment and clinical accuracy, it’s also about transparency, trust, and informed choice.
We discovered that:
- There is no national regulatory framework in India that addresses the reuse of high-risk single-use medical devices.
- Most hospitals do not obtain patient consent when reusing devices—despite the ethical implications.
- Some private hospitals charge full MRP for reused devices, in effect profiting off recycled risk.
- Standard protocols for cleaning and validation are inconsistent, often driven by hospital capacity, not safety standards.
- These are not mere system inefficiencies. These are avoidable harms. And that’s the very definition of a patient safety failure.
Turning Advocacy Into Action
We compiled everything, evidence, testimonies, global best practice into a white paper. But more than that, we used it as a springboard to push for change.
We called for:
- A national guideline on which devices can be reused, how, and under what conditions.
- Mandatory informed consent from patients, clearly outlining risks, benefits, and alternatives.
- A cap on what hospitals can charge for reprocessed devices, to prevent profiteering.
- A commitment to transparency and traceability, with labelled devices and documented reuse cycles.
- Our white paper has already sparked important conversations with regulators and hospitals. As we move through the year, we plan to bring this issue into a global space, because unsafe devices don't discriminate between patient types.
Please note that the views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Vital Signs.
