Monitoring the safe delivery of new invasive interventional procedures and devices: an analysis of NHS organisation policies.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lucy Wallis, Sian Cousins, Phei Yi Lim, Hollie S Richards, Leila Rooshenas, Jane M Blazeby
{"title":"Monitoring the safe delivery of new invasive interventional procedures and devices: an analysis of NHS organisation policies.","authors":"Lucy Wallis, Sian Cousins, Phei Yi Lim, Hollie S Richards, Leila Rooshenas, Jane M Blazeby","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The introduction and monitoring of innovative invasive procedures and devices (IP/Ds) was included in the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety (IMMDS) Review led by Baroness Cumberlege. Currently, innovative IP/Ds may be undertaken with local National Health Service (NHS) organisation approval via new procedure committees (NPCs) or approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee (NICE IPAC) provides guidance for appropriate approvals. Outcome monitoring is performed to inform decisions about continuing with the new IP/D or abandoning/pausing if safety data show signals of harm; this is the responsibility of local hospitals. Hospital policies for this process have hitherto not been investigated.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore local hospital NPC processes for monitoring clinical and safety outcomes and decision-making regarding the delivery of new IP/Ds.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>NHS organisation policies for the introduction of new IP/Ds from England and Wales were systematically examined using a standardised extraction form developed a priori. All policies and associated documents were analysed using the principles of content analysis, and information extracted included (1) the collection of safety and outcome data for approved IP/Ds; (2) requirements to adhere to NICE guidance and (3) how committees decide to abandon/pause the use of new IP/Ds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All policies (n=113) included information about monitoring outcomes of new IP/Ds. Substantial variation between hospitals in monitoring requirements was observed. Just 66 provided details of safety reporting oversight methods. Only 72 policies explicitly recommended following NICE IPAC guidance for the IP. Information about how decisions were made to abandon/pause new IP/Ds was included in 25 policies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a disparity among hospitals in how outcome and safety data of new IP/Ds are monitored. This has implications for patient safety. Our findings support the IMMDS report recommendations for the need for better oversight and governance of innovative IP/Ds, including collecting and sharing robust outcome data to inform decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12083431/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The introduction and monitoring of innovative invasive procedures and devices (IP/Ds) was included in the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety (IMMDS) Review led by Baroness Cumberlege. Currently, innovative IP/Ds may be undertaken with local National Health Service (NHS) organisation approval via new procedure committees (NPCs) or approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee (NICE IPAC) provides guidance for appropriate approvals. Outcome monitoring is performed to inform decisions about continuing with the new IP/D or abandoning/pausing if safety data show signals of harm; this is the responsibility of local hospitals. Hospital policies for this process have hitherto not been investigated.

Aim: To explore local hospital NPC processes for monitoring clinical and safety outcomes and decision-making regarding the delivery of new IP/Ds.

Methods: NHS organisation policies for the introduction of new IP/Ds from England and Wales were systematically examined using a standardised extraction form developed a priori. All policies and associated documents were analysed using the principles of content analysis, and information extracted included (1) the collection of safety and outcome data for approved IP/Ds; (2) requirements to adhere to NICE guidance and (3) how committees decide to abandon/pause the use of new IP/Ds.

Results: All policies (n=113) included information about monitoring outcomes of new IP/Ds. Substantial variation between hospitals in monitoring requirements was observed. Just 66 provided details of safety reporting oversight methods. Only 72 policies explicitly recommended following NICE IPAC guidance for the IP. Information about how decisions were made to abandon/pause new IP/Ds was included in 25 policies.

Conclusion: There is a disparity among hospitals in how outcome and safety data of new IP/Ds are monitored. This has implications for patient safety. Our findings support the IMMDS report recommendations for the need for better oversight and governance of innovative IP/Ds, including collecting and sharing robust outcome data to inform decision-making.

监测新的侵入性介入程序和设备的安全交付:NHS组织政策的分析。
背景:由Baroness Cumberlege领导的独立药物和医疗器械安全(IMMDS)审查中包括了创新侵入性程序和设备(IP/Ds)的引入和监测。目前,创新的IP/ d可以通过新的程序委员会(npc)或卫生研究管理局(HRA)的批准,在当地国家卫生服务(NHS)组织的批准下进行。国家健康和护理卓越介入程序咨询委员会(NICE IPAC)为适当的批准提供指导。进行结果监测,以便在安全数据显示危害信号时,为继续使用新的IP/D或放弃/暂停的决定提供信息;这是当地医院的责任。迄今尚未对医院关于这一进程的政策进行调查。目的:探讨地方医院NPC监控新IP/ d交付的临床和安全结果及决策流程。方法:从英格兰和威尔士引进新的IP/ d的NHS组织政策使用先验开发的标准化提取表进行系统检查。使用内容分析原则分析所有政策和相关文件,提取的信息包括:(1)收集已批准的IP/ d的安全性和结果数据;(2)遵守NICE指南的要求;(3)委员会如何决定放弃/暂停使用新的IP/ d。结果:所有政策(n=113)均包含有关新IP/ d监测结果的信息。观察到各医院在监测要求方面存在很大差异。只有66家提供了安全报告监督方法的细节。只有72项政策明确建议遵循NICE IPAC对知识产权的指导。关于如何决定放弃/暂停新IP/ d的信息包含在25项政策中。结论:不同医院对新发IP/ d的疗效和安全性数据的监测存在差异。这对患者安全有影响。我们的研究结果支持imds报告提出的需要加强对创新知识产权/研发项目的监督和治理的建议,包括收集和共享可靠的成果数据,为决策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信