Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-h9sqt Total loading time: 0.204 Render date: 2022-01-18T23:30:36.844Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

IDENTIFYING AND SELECTING NEW PROCEDURES FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A DECADE OF NICE EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2014

Bruce Campbell
Affiliation:
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, University of Exeter hannah.patrick@nice.org.uk
Rebekah Morris
Affiliation:
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, University of Exeter hannah.patrick@nice.org.uk
Lakshmi Mandava
Affiliation:
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, University of Exeter hannah.patrick@nice.org.uk
Lakshmi Murthy
Affiliation:
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, University of Exeter hannah.patrick@nice.org.uk
Helen Gallo
Affiliation:
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, University of Exeter hannah.patrick@nice.org.uk
Koh Jun Ong
Affiliation:
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, University of Exeter hannah.patrick@nice.org.uk
Ali Latif
Affiliation:
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, University of Exeter hannah.patrick@nice.org.uk
Hannah Patrick
Affiliation:
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, University of Exeter hannah.patrick@nice.org.uk

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the experience of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in identifying new procedures entering the United Kingdom (UK) healthcare system, for assessment and publication of recommendations on their use. This system is designed to provide guidance in an area where regulation is lacking worldwide.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of all procedures notified to the Interventional Procedures Programme (NICE) between 2002 and 2012. Notifications were analyzed year by year for their source (who notified them), clinical specialties involved, and whether guidance was subsequently published.

Results: A total of 1,094 procedures were notified by clinicians (51 percent), and by others, including hospitals (6 percent), horizon scanners (5 percent), patients (4 percent), private health insurers (4 percent), and medical device manufacturers (3 percent). Guidance was published on 44 percent of procedures notified to the program. There was a decrease in the numbers of procedures notified during 2003–2012 (p = .049). There were notifications across all specialties, with the largest numbers in general surgery (125), urology (104), orthopedics (99), interventional radiology (93), cardiology (82), and obstetrics and gynecology (82).

Conclusions: The “open” NICE Web portal allows anyone to notify new procedures, aiming to maximize the opportunity of identifying all those procedures entering clinical practice. This has resulted in identification of large numbers of procedures from across the whole range of medical specialties. The fact that similar proportions of procedures notified from diverse sources have been selected for assessment and publication of practice recommendations suggests that this inclusive approach is worthwhile.

Type
Methods
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Campbell, B, Maddern, G. Safety and efficacy of interventional procedures. BMJ. 2003;326:347348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Babidge, W, Maddern, G. Evidence-based surgery at ASERNIP-S. Can this improve quality in surgical practice? Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical. J Qual Clin Pract. 2000;20:164166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Bristol Royal Infirmary. Learning from Bristol: The report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995. Command Paper: CM 5207. Published by the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry, July 2001. Crown Copyright 2001Google Scholar
6. NICE. Guidance list. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/published?type=IPG (accessed August 2014)Google Scholar
7. Maddern, G, Boult, M, Ahern, E, Babidge, W. ASERNIP-S: International trend setting. ANZ J Surg. 2008;78:853858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Plumb, J, Campbell, B, Lyratzopoulos, G. How guidance on the use of interventional procedures is produced in different countries: An international survey. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:124133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Plumb, J, Lyratzopoulos, G, Gallo, H, Campbell, B. Comparison of the assessment of five new interventional procedures in different countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:102109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Gallego, G, Casey, R, Norman, R, Goodall, S. Introduction and uptake of new medical technologies in the Australian health care system: A qualitative study. Health Policy. 2011;102:152158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Mad, P, Geiger-Gritsch, S, Hinterreiter, G, Mathis-Edenhofer, S, Wild, C. Pre-coverage assessments of new hospital interventions on Austria: Methodology and 3 years of experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:171179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Department of Health. Health service circular 2003/011. The Interventional Procedures Programme. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
14. Lyratzopoulos, G, Hoy, AR, Veeramootoo, D, Shanmuganathan, NV, Campbell, B. Influence of expert clinical adviser characteristics on opinions about interventional procedures. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:166169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Latif, A. Identifying and assessing new procedures: An international perspective. Annual meeting of the Health Technology Assessment International 2013. Abstract 1355.Google Scholar
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

IDENTIFYING AND SELECTING NEW PROCEDURES FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A DECADE OF NICE EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

IDENTIFYING AND SELECTING NEW PROCEDURES FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A DECADE OF NICE EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

IDENTIFYING AND SELECTING NEW PROCEDURES FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A DECADE OF NICE EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *