1 / 19

Bruce Campbell Chairman NICE Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee

How will we know whether this technology is appropriate? OR New procedures, NICE and Specialist Societies. Bruce Campbell Chairman NICE Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee BCIS 30 th January 2009. Advanced Cardiovascular Intervention 30 th January, 2009.

dex
Télécharger la présentation

Bruce Campbell Chairman NICE Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How will we know whether this technology is appropriate?ORNew procedures, NICE and Specialist Societies Bruce Campbell Chairman NICE Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee BCIS 30th January 2009

  2. Advanced Cardiovascular Intervention 30th January, 2009 No conflicts to declare

  3. I have been asked to cover • NICE perspective on introducing new technologies • Processes leading up to IPGs and TAs • Tracking effectiveness (e.g. TAVI) • Specialist Societies – Training/audit

  4. NICE Guidance • Technology Appraisals • Clinical and cost effectiveness • Mandate for funding • Clinical Guidelines • Interventional Procedures • Safety and efficacy • Not cost No mandate to fund • Public Health

  5. NICE guidance and new procedures - an ideal • Research – provides initial data>>> • IP guidance - safety and efficacy (perhaps more data collection)>>> • Technology Appraisal – clinical and cost effectiveness>>> • Clinical guideline - place in management strategy

  6. Source of topics/procedures TECHNOLOGY APPRAISALS • Topic Selection Panel >>> debate • Formal referral from DH – list available INTERVENTIONAL PROCEDURES • Via NICE website • From clinicians, industry, patients, others • Does procedure fit the Programme’s remit?

  7. Remit of the NICE IP Programme • Procedures used for diagnosis or treatment that involve: • incision, puncture or entry into body cavity • ionising, electromagnetic, acoustic energy • First use in the NHS (or private sector) • New concerns about efficacy or safety Procedures not specific devices

  8. Evidence used by IPAC • Published studies (not normally abstracts) • Specialist Adviser information/views • Patient comments • Committee Members’ knowledge Some differences for TAs • Submissions from stakeholders • Clinical Specialists & Patient Experts attend ………public attend both

  9. What to recommend when evidence for IP is inadequate? “Special Arrangements” for: • Governance – tell your hospital • Consent - tell your patients • Audit/research – review your outcomes

  10. Possible “1.1” recommendations • “Normal arrangements” • “Special arrangements” • Research only • Do not use

  11. Other recommendations • Teams/units – very careful • Training – need specialist collaboration • Data collection - but practical difficulties • Research needed - specify outcomes

  12. Public consultation Seldom disagreement with recommendations Common responses: • Technical details • Indications • Selected centres only • More detail on consent All considered: often stimulate changes

  13. Registers – our aspirations • Data collection for procedures with uncertain evidence & “cautious” guidance • Existing databases if appropriate, or • Limited datasets focussed on data needed for NICE IP review • Funding linked to data submission

  14. NICE IP guidance and CCAD • Guidance recommends submission (18) • BUT - CCAD may not have specific field • AND – we need relevant data for review • AND – CCAD data may be incomplete

  15. CCAD vs HES data on Percutaneous Closure of PFO 2007-8: CCAD - 332 procedures from 23 hospitals HES - 632 procedures from 35 hospitals (manufacturer data support HES)

  16. Data collection on TAVI “Cautious”guidance because: • Efficacy: small numbers and short term • Safety: potential for serious complications SUBMISSION TO CCAD RECOMMENDED • NICE collaboration with CCAD • Need some PROMs as well as objective data • Funding: perennial problem/precedent

  17. Thanks to all involved with CCADNICE committed to collaboration

  18. Training workshop consensus • NICE + SOs should identify procedures and NICE should make training recommendations • SOs should define skills, standards, strategy • Supporting framework necessary • Manufacturers make valuable contributions • Audit data inform review and “benchmark” • NICE should request more detail from SAs SOs – Specialist Organisations SAs – Specialist Advisers

More Related