Sign in: Staff/Students
A researcher from the University of Liverpool’s Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, has published a paper about the challenges faced in introducing new devices and diagnostics into health services.
Dr Paul Knox, Reader, Eye and Vision Science, reflects on seven years’ experience as a member of the Medical Technology Advisory Committee (MTAC) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Writing with Professor Bruce Campbell (first chair of MTAC) in The International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health, he notes that making decisions about introducing new devices and diagnostics into health services are difficult because the amount of evidence about them is often limited.
NICE established its Medical Technology Evaluation Programme, of which MTAC is a part, to generate advice about the early adoption of promising technologies.
Improved process was needed
In the paper, entitled ‘Promise and Plausibility: Health Technology adoption decisions with limited evidence’, Campbell and Knox argue that when clinical and scientific evidence is sparse, judgements based on the promise of a new technology can still be made by balancing risks, costs and benefits against the available evidence, aided by clinical expert and patient input.
Plausibility (or “plausible promise”) is central to this kind of decision making and consensus can be reached by a broad-based committee like MTAC. These processes are different to conventional methods of HTA and are difficult to provide at a local healthcare level.
While the combined efforts of regulators and NICE may gradually promote an improved understanding and culture of evidence generation throughout the medical devices industry, this change is likely to be slow.
Dr Paul Knox, said: “These assessments and decisions involve an element of judgement, experience, and occasionally professional intuition so a vital requirement is transparency.
“It should be possible to share with professional and public audiences how decisions have been reached and the information and considerations that have led to them.”
These processes can inform commissioners and funders of health care, as well as clinicians and patients, when they are making their own decisions about whether to adopt new technologies.
Dr Knox adds: “Any decision can be a wrong decision, and decisions made in the context of sparse evidence may carry a higher risk of being wrong. But not making decisions, or requiring impossible or impractical levels of evidence before making them, carries the risk of denying important innovations to patients.”
The full paper can be found here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
All recent news
Event: How can we change our fashion consumption to become more sustainable?
Student stories: Industry placement experiences
First patient dosed in latest stage of AGILE COVID-19 drug trial
Episode 5: Chris Witterick
Episode 4: Hannah Forbes
Our paper on immune responses to COVID vaccine (mostly Pfizer) in 237 healthcare workers, 124 #SARSCoV2 naïve and 113 previously infected, from the PITCH consortium @pitchstudy is out as a pre-print today.
See if you can spot us in the new @NetflixUK series, The Irregulars! 📽️
Our @VictoriaGallery appears in it, as well as other locations across the city including St George’s Plateau, the Palm House in Sefton Park and Falkner Street in the Georgian Quarter.
Professor Michael Parkinson CBE, author of 1985's Liverpool on the Brink, and Liverpool Beyond the Brink in 2019, analyses the Caller Report, the Gov's Best Value inspection into Liverpool City Council