Search

Background: There is growing interest internationally in linking reimbursement decisions with recommendations for further research. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) can issue guidance to approve the routine use of a health intervention, reject routine use or recommend use within a research programme. These latter recommendations have restricted use to 'only in research' (OIR) or have recommended further research alongside routine use ('approval with research' or AWR). However, it is not currently clear when such recommendations are likely to be made. Objectives: This study aims to identify NICE technology appraisals where OIR or AWR recommendations were made and to examine the key considerations that led to those decisions. Methods: Draft and final guidance including OIR/AWR recommendations were identified. The documents were reviewed to establish the characteristics of the technology appraisal, the cost effectiveness of the technologies, the key considerations that led to the recommendations and the types of research required. Results: In total, 29 final and 31 draft guidance documents included OIR/AWR recommendations up to January 2010. Overall, 86 % of final guidance included OIR recommendations. Of these, the majority were for technologies considered to be cost ineffective (83 %) and the majority of final guidance (66 %) specified the need for further evidence on relative effectiveness. The use of OIR/AWR recommendations is decreasing over time and they have rarely been used in appraisals conducted through the single technology appraisal process. Conclusion: NICE has used its ability to recommend technologies within research programmes, although predominantly within the multiple technology appraisal process. OIR recommendations have been most frequently issued for technologies considered cost ineffective and the most frequently cited consideration is uncertainty related to relative effectiveness. Key considerations cited for most AWR recommendations and some OIR recommendations included a need for further evidence on long-term outcomes and adverse effects of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issues. Many policy review articles have concluded that alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) is both cost-effective and cost-beneficial. Yet a recent cost-effectiveness review for the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence suggests that these conclusions may be premature. Approach. This article offers a brief synopsis of the various types of economic analyses that may be applied to SBI, including cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis and other types of economic evaluation. A brief overview of methodological issues is provided, and examples from the SBI evaluation literature are provided. Key Findings, Implications and Conclusions. The current evidence base is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the cost, cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit of SBI and about the impact of SBI on health-care utilisation.[Cowell AJ, Bray JW, Mills MJ, Hinde JM. Conducting economic evaluations of screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking: Methods and evidence to date for informing policy. Drug Alcohol Rev 2010;29;623-630] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The quality standard, BS 5750 has been revised for the British Ministry of Defence (MoD). New identity of the standard will be as BS EN ISO 9000. Standards affected by the revision includes: Quality management and quality assurance, model for quality assurance in design, development, production, installation and servicing. Another standards affected are model for quality assurance in final inspection and test. The Association of British Certification Bodies, in consultation with MoD, have declared that organizations making application to Third Party Certification Bodies after 1 August 1994 should normally be assessed to the appropriate BS EN ISO 9000:1994 standard.

The Management Charter Initiative (MCI) has announced that it is to develop vocational standards of best practice for quality managers throughout Great Britain. MCI, an industry-led organization, has been appointed by the government to devise a comprehensive set of standards to measure the performance of quality managers in the workplace, across all type and size of organizations. MCI aims to produce a model of standards for quality managers by October 1992. The standards will not only apply to quality managers but will also emphasize the quality aspect of a general manager's role.