When the Cabinet Office released its Public Design Evidence Review (PDER) this week, I was hopeful. Finally, it seemed like a serious, evidence-based attempt to embed design across public services.

But by the end of its 100-plus pages, I was left with one uncomfortable question: Where is the human fragility?

Where is the recognition that many users arrive at GOV.UK and digital services already stressed, operating under burnout, economic strain or emotional overwhelm?

There are countless references to co-design, service integration and even public value. But trauma? Not a mention. Personal or systemic. Emotional safety? Invisible.

That silence speaks volumes.

Not all trauma wears a label

Most public-service content isn’t about bereavement or crisis. But that doesn’t mean it’s trauma-free.

Micro-traumas, the slow drip of stress caused by bureaucratic jargon, poor tone, inaccessible forms or cold automated prompts, are real. And now, even the government acknowledges it.

The 2025 ‘Blueprint for modern digital government‘ notes that net public satisfaction with digital government services declined from 79% in 2015 to 68% in 2025, a ten-year drop despite ongoing investment. This isn’t a blip. It signals something deeper: users are less ready, less resilient, and less willing to tolerate emotional friction online.

Post-COVID, baseline cognitive load, patience and mental resilience have dropped dramatically, especially among those facing financial hardship, digital exclusion or health problems.

So, when services are built on the assumption that people are calm, fluent, and digitally confident, they not only fall short but also inflict harm.

The Consumer Duty connection

This is more than a design issue. It’s a regulatory one.

Since July 2023, the FCA’s Consumer Duty has required regulated firms to deliver “good outcomes” by prioritising consumer needs, particularly those of vulnerable individuals. This isn’t optional. It’s an enforceable expectation: communications must be clear, appropriate, timely, and accessible. It recognises that users aren’t always rational or in full control.

But apply that logic to government digital services? It’s absent.

Where private firms must adapt for low emotional reserves, public digital services are still written for the assumed “ideal user”: calm, literate, cyber-fluent. That’s a dangerous disconnect. It means the most vulnerable users, those facing multiple stressors, are treated as though they were fit for purpose.

That’s not inclusion. It’s exclusion by design.

A missed opportunity for design leadership

The PDER contains solid insights, such as academic reviews, varied case studies and some institutional honesty in DWP reflections.

But if it truly aimed to establish an “evidence base” for public design, the absence of trauma-informed or emotionally aware practices is more than oversight. It’s a blind spot. And a costly one.

Other sectors have recognised this. Healthcare, justice, financial services, and even US government services, such as Medicaid, are embedding emotional safety into their service design. Yet in 2025, the UK’s central public design manifesto treats vulnerability as invisible.

You can’t build trust on content someone reads while crying, desperately trying to feed their family or juggling childcare and Wifi access.

Emotional safety shouldn’t be optional

Design has always championed empathy. But what does empathy mean if it’s only demographic? Does it exclude psychological readiness and lived stress? That’s not design, but it’s decoration.

An emotionally safe service isn’t just plain English. It’s one that:

• Treats users, especially those under pressure, as worthy.

• Reduces shame, complexity and cognitive burden.

• Offers clarity without coldness.

• Minimises rework, frustration and escalation.

And yes, it offers space for human error.

If someone under duress gets a threatening automated notification demanding documents within five days or face sanctions, that is not service. It’s state-inflicted stress.

Three shifts the next review must include

If the Cabinet Office truly wants modern, future-ready public services, here’s what needs to change next:

1. Embed trauma-aware practice as a design standard

All designers and policy writers should assess the emotional impact of their content. Not “if possible”. Mandatory.

2. Test with users under strain

Not just polished personas, but real people in crisis, living pay-cycle to pay‑cycle, managing caring, inside poor connectivity or not yet tech-savvy.

3. Include workforce impact

This isn’t just about citizens. Call-centre staff, caseworkers and frontline staff bear the brunt of opaque or emotionally jarring services. Design that harms users also damages staff.

This is not a rant but a roadmap

I’ve spent my career in digital and content design. I know perfection isn’t possible. But omission is a choice.

Suppose trauma-informed content and emotional safety are not part of the next Public Design Evidence Review. In that case, we are officially choosing ignorance, at a moment when emotional wellbeing is public policy in itself.

The public landscape has shifted. Users have changed. The question isn’t should services be trauma‑aware. It’s how fast do we build that into service standard and evaluation.

Because, in 2025, public satisfaction no longer automatically rises with digital evolution. It often falls fastest among the most vulnerable.

Design needs to catch up, or enough of the public will be left behind.