The number of AI products entering NHS clinical workflows is accelerating. The number with rigorous clinical safety cases is not keeping pace.
Too many vendors treat DCB0129 as a documentation exercise - a hurdle to clear before go-live. The Clinical Safety Case Report becomes a retrospective justification rather than an active risk management tool.
This matters because AI systems behave differently from the static digital health tools DCB0129 was designed for. They drift. They hallucinate. They perform differently across populations. A safety case written at a point in time decays the moment the model is retrained or the user population shifts.
A meaningful clinical safety case for AI should:
An accredited CSO is not a rubber stamp. They are the named individual accountable for confirming that clinical risks have been managed to an acceptable level. That accountability means being willing to say no - to delay a deployment, to require additional mitigations, to escalate when commercial pressure conflicts with patient safety.
This is uncomfortable. It is also the point.
TrustPoint Digital Health provides independent clinical safety governance for AI and digital health products under DCB0129 and DCB0160. Get in touch to discuss your safety case.
TrustPoint provides independent clinical safety governance for digital health and clinical AI - DCB0129/DCB0160 safety cases, readiness reviews, and post-market surveillance.