Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:49:35.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health-care technology assessment: a clinical perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2004

Cyril Chantler
Cyril Chantler
Affiliation:
Kings Fund, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Health technology assessment needs to relate to contemporary questions which concern public health-care systems: how to keep people healthy, how to focus on the needs of those with chronic disabilities and integrate care between the hospital and the community, how to encourage and audit effective teamwork, and how to establish a consensus about what is effective and affordable. Clinicians have an ethical responsibility to practice efficiently and economically, for profligacy in the care of one patient may mean that another is treated inadequately. For similar reasons, clinicians need to play a full role in the management of services. Advice from health technology assessment is vital and needs to be accurate, relevant, timely, clear, and accessible. As well as being concerned about what works, we need also to eliminate from practice what does not. Regular audit and appraisal of practice against the evidence base should be useful in this respect. Alternative approaches to management, such as the provision of care as opposed to aggressive treatments, need to be evaluated, and health technology assessment needs to consider how services are delivered, not just specific treatments.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentClinical medicine
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 87 - 91
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berg M, van der Grinten T, Klazinga N. 2004 Technology assessment, priority setting and appropriate care in Dutch health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 35– 43.Google Scholar
BMJ Publishing Group. 2001 Clinical evidence. London: BMJ Publishing Group; ISBN 0727915096.
Burke K. 2002 No cash to implement NICE, health authorities tell MP's. BMJ. 324: 258.Google Scholar
Carlsson P. 2004 Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 44– 54.Google Scholar
Chantler C. 1999 The role and education of doctors in the delivery of health care. Lancet. 353: 1178– 1181.Google Scholar
Chantler C. 2001 The potential of community hospitals to change the delivery of health care. Health Care UK, Winter 2001. London: The Kings Fund; 56– 62. ISBN 1857174300.
Chantler C. 2002 The second greatest benefit to mankind? Lancet. 360: 1870– 1877.Google Scholar
Coulter A. 2002 The autonomous patient-ending paternalism in health care. The John Fry Lecture, Available at: www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk.
Garanttini S, Bertele V. 2002 Efficacy, safety and cost of new anti-cancer drugs. BMJ. 325: 269– 271.Google Scholar
Hinds CJ. 2001 Treatment of sepsis with activated protein C. BMJ. 323: 881– 882.Google Scholar
Kings Fund. 2002 Future of the NHS, A framework for debate. London: Kings Fund
Lambeth, Southwark, and Lewisham Health Authority. Evidence to the House of Commons select committee on health. Available at: www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/hlthhome.htm. Accessed: March 3, 2003.
Mintzberg H. 1983 Structure in fives: Designing effective organisations. London: Prentice Hall
Muir Gray JA, de Lusignan S. 1999 National electronic library for health. BMJ. 319: 1476– 1479. Available at: www.nelh.nhs.uk. Accessed: March 3, 2003.Google Scholar
New W. 1999 A good enough service: Values, tradeoffs and the NHS. London: Kings Fund; ISBN 1860300936.
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Effective health care: Getting evidence into practice. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press; February 1999:5; 1.
Orvain J, Xerri B, Matillon Y. 2004 Overview of health technology assessment in France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 25– 34.Google Scholar
Padkin A, Rowan K, Black N. 2001 Using high quality clinical databases to complement the results of randomised control trials: The case of recombinant human activated protein C. BMJ. 323: 923– 925.Google Scholar
Powell JE. 1966 A new look at medicine and politics. Tunbridge Wells: Pitman Medical Publishing; See also J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:118-120.
Sassi F, LeGrand J, Archar DL. 2001 Equity versus efficiency: A dilemma for the NHS. BMJ. 323: 762– 763.Google Scholar
Shine KI. Presidents report to the members, Institute of Medicine Annual Meeting, October 16 2001. Available at: www.iom.edu. Accessed: March 3, 2003.
Stevens A, Milne R. 2004 Health technology assessment in England and Wales. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 11– 24.Google Scholar
The Extra Care Charitable Trust. Abbey Park, Humber Road, Coventry CV3 4AQ. Available at: www.extracare.org.uk.Accessed: March 3, 2003.