The Mental Health Technology Appraisal and Clinical Guidelines Programmes of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence for England and Wales

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 142-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Warren

Objective: To describe a method for the rapid appraisal of new interventional procedures and to compare its conclusions with those derived from a slower, more thorough method. Methods: Explanation of an algorithm, pragmatically developed over a decade at the British United Provident Association (BUPA), to classify requests for funding for new interventional procedures as 'Fund routinely'; 'Fund as a one-off'; 'Fund in trial only'; 'Do not fund currently' within about 48 hours. Comparison of the resulting categorizations of 39 interventional procedures against the subsequent work of the English National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Interventional Procedures team. The first two BUPA categories were equated with NICE's 'evidence adequate' and the second two with 'evidence inadequate'. Results: The algorithm is fit for purpose. It facilitated 114 requests for funding, received before June 2005, being successfully allocated: fund routinely, 33 (28.9%); fund as a one-off, 20 (17.5%); fund in trial only, 37 (32.5%); do not fund, 24 (21.1%). NICE subsequently categorized 18 being 'evidence adequate' and 21 'evidence inadequate'. There was concordance between BUPA and NICE on 35/39 (90%) of the topics. The four discrepancies are discussed. Conclusion: Rapid appraisal of new interventional procedures using the BUPA algorithm is feasible and in most instances its output is similar to that obtained from a slower more thorough method.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S530
Author(s):  
N. Illingworth ◽  
P.J. Ruane ◽  
C.W. Tallentire

2002 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 243-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angus Mackay

In company with all other branches of the NHS, those concerned with mental health are currently the target of a plethora of standards, guidelines and derivatives thereof. In England and Wales, the responsibility for the production of national clinical guidelines rests with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), and the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) is charged with the monitoring of performance. In Scotland, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) and the Clinical Standards Board for Scotland (CSBS) undertake these respective responsibilities. However, NICE is also responsible for a rather different form of activity, and one that has forced it recurringly into the media limelight in the 2 years since its creation. This is the formulation of national advice on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of new and existing health technology. Health technology is a rather pedantic, if precisely defined, term that means essentially any health intervention and it includes medicines, devices, clinical procedures and even health care settings. Post-devolution and in the wake of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, the Health Technology Board for Scotland (HTBS) was created by statute in April 2000. This organisation shares with NICE the responsibility for issuing advice on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of health technologies, in HTBS's case primarily to NHS Scotland. Therefore, two nationally-oriented organisations exist on either side of Hadrian's Wall, responsible to their respective Parliaments for providing authoritative opinions on whether or not a particular health intervention should be provided within the NHS. A crude approximation to the subject of this advice would be ‘value for money’. While, for reasons that will be explained, such a term is potentially misleading, it does serve to identify the basic elements of the need to which this activity is a response.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document