Volume 1
Medical research and the NHS reforms / House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
- Date:
- 1995
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: Medical research and the NHS reforms / House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.
128/132 page 126
![SPUR and EUREKA; however they undertook to “review the scope” for anew medical programme within LINK. They noted that a grace period for patent applications was one possible outcome of an international treaty on intellectual property then under discussion. 9. The response declares, “The Government is working to ensure that new devices or novel applications which raise important questions of safety, effectiveness or cost-effectiveness which are not covered by regulatory mechanisms are appropriately evaluated and do not pass into general use in health care until shown to be safe, effective and cost-effective”, and, “The abandonment of obsolete and ineffective techniques is of great importance”. It refers to a recent DH report, “Assessing the Effect of Health Technologies”; the NHS R&D Strategy, involving the SGHT and the dissemination of information about effectiveness; the role of RDRDs to encourage evidence- based practice and purchasing; the DH medical devices evaluation programme and the National Reporting and Investigation Centre which tracks adverse incidents in service; EC Directives on medical devices; a DH-Scottish Office joint advisory report on minimal-access surgery; and the significant DH-NHS investment in “research and audit studies on outcomes of medical interventions”. However the Government rejected the proposal for a committee on the safety of surgical procedures. They warned, “bearing in mind the vast array of new technologies being presented to the NHS, it will be important to prioritise health technology assessment so that resources are used to the best effect...[and] innovation is not stifled”; and, “the pace and scale of technological change will make the task of monitoring the application of new technologies especially difficult’. 10. The one recommendation explicitly endorsed is that for training in Good Clinical Practice for those involved in clinical research. The response “recommends” that the NHS co-ordinate it, in consultation with professional and regulatory bodies, and that RDRDs take the lead. 11. With regard to common standards in health economics, the response refers to the York Centre for Health Economics, the Scottish Health Economics Research Unit, and the SGHT’s Methodology Advisory Panel. As for the NHS as an intelligent customer, in England “Links are being established between the NHS Supplies Authority and the NHS R&D programme”’, and in Scotland evaluation mechanisms have been located within the Supplies Division of the NHS common services agency. The response refers also to the NHS R&D advisory group on genetics, and the MRC’s new Health Services and Public Health Research Board and Genetic Approach to Human Health initiative. Subsequent developments 12. Inthe long run, ACOST may get more of what they wanted than appears from the Government response. On 30 January 1995 (DH Press Release 95/45), the Government announced MEDLINK; which will offer £20m over five years for matched funding of academic-industry collaborations in the field of medical devices. The Department of Health has begun discussions with the Conference of Colleges about the development of a system for identifying major new technologies in the NHS and ensuring that appropriate evaluation takes place before procedures enter general use; and training in Good Clinical Practice will form part of the research capacity strategy for NHS R&D now being prepared (p370).](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32219337_0001_0128.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
