Poorly designed computer systems are costing the NHS as much staff time as sickness absence, according to new evidence presented by NHS England’s head of digital transformation at a major 2026 conference. Dermot Ryan told delegates at Digital Health Rewired in Birmingham that internal NHS analysis shows the impact of unusable systems is comparable to the loss of workforce capacity caused by staff illness.
The findings represent one of the clearest acknowledgements yet that digital inefficiencies are not merely an inconvenience but a systemic productivity issue affecting frontline care delivery. Ryan, who previously led the £1.9 billion frontline digitisation programme to roll out electronic patient records (EPRs) across England, said the NHS currently ranks in the “bottom decile” globally for technology usability. This places the UK health system behind many international peers in terms of how effectively digital tools support clinical workflows.
Time lost to inefficient systems rivals workforce shortages
The comparison with sickness absence is particularly striking given the scale of staffing challenges across the NHS. Sickness absence has long been recognised as a major pressure on the health service, contributing to rota gaps, increased agency spending and delays in patient care. By equating poor IT usability with this level of impact, NHS England is effectively framing digital inefficiency as a workforce issue rather than a purely technical one.
Clinicians have consistently reported that poorly designed systems increase administrative burden, require duplicate data entry and slow down routine tasks. In some cases, processes that should take seconds can take minutes due to multiple logins, fragmented interfaces or lack of interoperability. This aligns with wider evidence from the Royal College of Physicians, which has identified inefficient IT systems as one of the top factors negatively affecting clinician wellbeing and productivity. The cumulative effect is significant: time spent navigating systems is time not spent on direct patient care.
Digital maturity progress masks usability challenges
The findings come despite substantial investment in NHS digital infrastructure over the past decade. Programmes such as the national EPR rollout have dramatically increased the adoption of digital systems across hospitals, with most trusts now operating some form of electronic record. However, Ryan’s comments suggest that adoption has outpaced usability.
While systems may be technically functional, they are not always designed with user experience in mind. This disconnect can limit the benefits of digital transformation, reducing efficiency gains and potentially introducing new risks. Ryan also indicated that long-awaited digital maturity scores for NHS trusts are expected to be published soon, providing greater transparency on how organisations are performing in areas such as infrastructure, interoperability and usability. Experts suggest that these metrics could help identify where investment and improvement efforts should be targeted.
Usability now central to NHS digital strategy
The growing focus on usability marks a shift in how digital transformation is being approached within the NHS. Earlier phases of digitisation prioritised infrastructure—ensuring that systems were in place across organisations. The next phase is increasingly focused on optimisation, including how well those systems support staff in practice. This includes improving interface design, reducing duplication, integrating systems and providing better training for staff. There is also a growing emphasis on involving clinicians in system design, ensuring that tools align with real-world workflows.
Research in digital health has consistently shown that usability is a critical determinant of adoption and effectiveness. Systems that are difficult to use are less likely to be embraced by staff, regardless of their technical capabilities. The NHS’s own digital clinical safety strategy highlights that technology must not only function correctly but also support safe and efficient care delivery—reinforcing the link between usability and patient outcomes.
Implications for workforce, safety and innovation
The implications of the findings extend beyond productivity. Poor usability can contribute to staff frustration, burnout and reduced morale, factors that are already significant concerns within the NHS workforce. There are also potential patient safety risks. Complex or unintuitive systems can increase the likelihood of errors, particularly in high-pressure clinical environments where time is critical.
For health technology suppliers, the message is clear: usability must be treated as a core requirement rather than an afterthought. Contracts and procurement processes are increasingly expected to prioritise user-centred design and measurable outcomes. At a system level, the findings reinforce the importance of aligning digital investment with workforce strategy. Improving usability could unlock significant capacity within the existing workforce—arguably more quickly than recruiting additional staff.
A turning point for NHS digital transformation?
Ryan’s remarks suggest that the NHS is entering a new phase of digital transformation, one focused less on deployment and more on performance. If poor usability is indeed consuming as much capacity as sickness absence, addressing it could represent one of the most impactful interventions available to the health service.
For policymakers and NHS leaders, the challenge will be turning this recognition into action: redesigning systems, improving integration and ensuring that digital tools genuinely support those delivering care. As the NHS continues its shift towards a more digital, data-driven model, the success of that transformation may ultimately depend not on the technology itself, but on how well it works for the people using it every day.
