Jump to content

Search the hub

Showing results for tags 'Medical device'.


More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Start to type the tag you want to use, then select from the list.

  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • All
    • Commissioning, service provision and innovation in health and care
    • Coronavirus (COVID-19)
    • Culture
    • Improving patient safety
    • Investigations, risk management and legal issues
    • Leadership for patient safety
    • Organisations linked to patient safety (UK and beyond)
    • Patient engagement
    • Patient safety in health and care
    • Patient Safety Learning
    • Professionalising patient safety
    • Research, data and insight
    • Miscellaneous

Categories

  • Commissioning, service provision and innovation in health and care
    • Commissioning and funding patient safety
    • Digital health and care service provision
    • Health records and plans
    • Innovation programmes in health and care
    • Climate change/sustainability
  • Coronavirus (COVID-19)
    • Blogs
    • Data, research and statistics
    • Frontline insights during the pandemic
    • Good practice and useful resources
    • Guidance
    • Mental health
    • Exit strategies
    • Patient recovery
  • Culture
    • Bullying and fear
    • Good practice
    • Occupational health and safety
    • Safety culture programmes
    • Second victim
    • Speak Up Guardians
    • Staff safety
    • Whistle blowing
  • Improving patient safety
    • Clinical governance and audits
    • Design for safety
    • Disasters averted/near misses
    • Equipment and facilities
    • Error traps
    • Health inequalities
    • Human factors (improving human performance in care delivery)
    • Improving systems of care
    • Implementation of improvements
    • International development and humanitarian
    • Safety stories
    • Stories from the front line
    • Workforce and resources
  • Investigations, risk management and legal issues
    • Investigations and complaints
    • Risk management and legal issues
  • Leadership for patient safety
    • Business case for patient safety
    • Boards
    • Clinical leadership
    • Exec teams
    • Inquiries
    • International reports
    • National/Governmental
    • Patient Safety Commissioner
    • Quality and safety reports
    • Techniques
    • Other
  • Organisations linked to patient safety (UK and beyond)
    • Government and ALB direction and guidance
    • International patient safety
    • Regulators and their regulations
  • Patient engagement
    • Consent and privacy
    • Harmed care patient pathways/post-incident pathways
    • How to engage for patient safety
    • Keeping patients safe
    • Patient-centred care
    • Patient stories
  • Patient safety in health and care
    • Care settings
    • Conditions
    • Diagnosis
    • High risk areas
    • Learning disabilities
    • Medication
    • Mental health
    • Men's health
    • Patient management
    • Social care
    • Transitions of care
    • Women's health
  • Patient Safety Learning
    • Patient Safety Learning campaigns
    • Patient Safety Learning documents
    • Patient Safety Learning news archive
    • 2-minute Tuesdays
    • Patient Safety Learning Annual Conference 2019
    • Patient Safety Learning Annual Conference 2018
    • Patient Safety Learning Awards 2019
    • Patient Safety Learning Interviews
    • Patient Safety Learning webinars
  • Professionalising patient safety
    • Accreditation for patient safety
    • Competency framework
    • Medical students
    • Patient safety standards
    • Training
  • Research, data and insight
    • Data and insight
    • Research
  • Miscellaneous
    • Health care
    • Social care
    • Jobs and voluntary positions
    • Suggested resources

News

  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start
    End

Last updated

  • Start
    End

Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


First name


Last name


Country


Join a private group (if appropriate)


About me


Organisation


Role

Found 226 results
  1. Content Article
    Actions for ophthalmology, ophthalmic theatres, and Medical Devices Safety Officers. To be completed 26 January 2023 Please take the following actions immediately: Nominate a lead person to take responsibility for completing these actions. Note – we recommend including colleagues in purchasing, supplies, and the Medical Device Safety Officer (MDSO). Identify if your organisation uses these IOLs Stop using these impacted products immediately Quarantine these impacted IOLs until further notice. Consider using a suitable alternative product if available following local risk assessment Immediately notify any other departments who need to be aware of this notice.
  2. News Article
    Every year, millions of people live fuller lives because of a medical device implanted somewhere in their body - from hip joints, to teeth, to heart valves. Known as Foreign Body Response (FBR), inflammation and scarring around an implant is natural, but in some cases, it can severely damage healthy tissue and can even lead to death if the implant is not removed. FBR-related implant failure rates range widely among different medical devices, but reducing those rates has been difficult because scientists still don’t understand the underlying biology that causes FBR. Now, researchers from the University of Maryland have discovered the molecular basis for FBR, identifying a key biological pathway that future drug therapies could target to reduce the risk of implant rejection. Shaik O. Rahaman, an associate professor in the Department of Nutrition and Food Science in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at UMD, and his colleagues identified a specific cellular signaling system that kicks in when the body recognises the inherent difference in stiffness between an implant and the surrounding tissue. This system detects the mismatch and triggers inflammation and scarring, which is part of the body’s normal defense system. But in FBR, the signaling system can set up a cycle of chronic inflammation and continual scar-tissue build-up that leads to implant rejection. “This is a huge leap forward in this field,” Rahaman said. “So far, the medical industry has been making biomedical implants randomly, out of materials they think might work without knowing the molecular basis of the foreign body response that leads to rejection. We don’t know why it happens, and until we do, we can’t effectively develop strategies to prevent it.” Read full story Source: College of Agriculture and Nature Resources, 19 January 2023
  3. News Article
    Mesh campaigners claim Scotland's Health Secretary Humza Yousaf refused to meet them to hear their concerns. Patients blame surgical mesh products for leaving them disabled and in chronic pain and want the Scottish Government to hold an independent review into the use of the products. However, followihttps://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/mesh-campaigners-claim-humza-yousaf-29075491ng a debate in the Scottish Parliament earlier this month, the Health Secretary denied their request. Campaigner Roseanna Clarkin, of the Scottish Global Mesh Alliance, said Yousaf has refused several requests for meetings with campaigners spanning nearly two years. Roseanna, who has been left with crippling pain after mesh was used on her umbilical hernia in 2015, has blasted him for “ignoring” those affected by mesh procedures. From the late 90s until 2018, women in Scotland were treated with polypropylene mesh implants for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. In some, it caused severe pain and life-changing side effects. While the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review called for a pause in use of vaginal mesh, the products are not banned for all procedures. The Scottish Global Mesh Alliance were behind the petition calling for an independent review which was debated at Holyrood. They want to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices while a review is carried out. Roseanna said: “Why do they assume mesh in another part of the body would respond differently and not cause extreme pain and serious infections?” Read full story Source: Daily Record, 29 January 2023
  4. News Article
    Patients across the UK are set to benefit from access to safe, effective and innovative equipment and medical devices as part of the first ever medical technology (medtech) strategy published today. The blueprint for boosting NHS medtech will focus on accelerating access to innovative technologies, such as the latest generation of home dialysis machines that enable patients to manage their own health at home and in their day to day lives. It also sets out steps which need to be taken to ensure patients can access safe, effective and innovative technology through the NHS, which can help diagnose, treat and deliver care more quickly, freeing up clinician time. The NHS spends £10 billion a year on medtech including syringes, wheelchairs, Minister of State for Health Will Quince said: "The UK’s innovative spirit delivered revolutionary technology during the pandemic - from COVID tests and ventilators - and we want to harness this in promoting cutting-edge medical advancements to improve patient care. The NHS spends around £10 billion a year on medical technology and I’m looking forward to working with industry to use this as we focus on reducing hospital stays, enhancing diagnosis, preventing illness and freeing up staff time. This new medtech strategy will help build a sustainable NHS with patients at the centre so people can continue to access the right care at the right time." The key aims of the strategy are to: boost the supply of the best equipment to deliver greater resilience to health care challenges, such as pandemics, and enhance NHS performance through modernised technology which will enable faster diagnosis, treatment and ultimately discharge to free up hospital beds. encourage ambitious, innovative research to secure the UK’s position as a global science superpower and attract vital investment for the UK economy and create jobs across the country. In 2021, there were already around 60 different research programmes supporting innovative technologies, representing over £1 billion of funding. increase understanding and awareness of medtech by clinicians which will lead to more informed purchasing on new products and deliver better value for taxpayer money and better services for patients. build on the Life Sciences Vision to improve collaboration between the NHS, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) as an innovation partner to ensure patients can access the right products safely. Read full story Source: DHSC, 3 February 2023
  5. Content Article
    Vision for medtech The vision focusses on 3 central objectives: right product right price right place. These concepts centre on delivering the highest quality of care for patients and interact with and balance against each other - often, as focus on one component increases, focus on the others can decrease. Striking the best possible balance between these objectives is difficult, but the aim is to reach an optimal point where all 3 elements are weighted appropriately so the UK medtech sector best supports the UK health and care system in delivering improved health outcomes for patients. Four priority areas Having considered the broader landscape and current activity, the strategy has identified four priority areas: Priority 1: resilience and continuity of supply. Priority 2: innovative and dynamic markets. Priority 3: enabling infrastructure. Priority 4: specific market focusses.
  6. News Article
    Ministers are considering putting a cancer warning on all breast implants a decade after women had ‘a cocktail of chemicals intended for mattresses’ put into their bodies. Experts and MPs are calling for tighter regulation and better support after the PIP faulty breast implant scandal left women – including breast cancer survivors – ‘suffering and dying in silence’. Health minister Maria Caulfield pledged on Monday to consider a so-called ‘black-box’ warning on breast implant packaging like in the US. It came during a debate on the faulty breast implant scandal which saw 47,000 British women given ‘ticking time bomb’ implants made by Poly Implant Prothese (PIP). PIP implants were outlawed in 2010 when they were revealed to be made with substandard silicone and up to six times more likely to rupture. Victims of the scandal have reported a wide range of serious side-effects as experts say they are linked to a raft of health problems including the new form of cancer. Anyone with a PIP implant can officially apply to have it removed by the NHS, but Labour MP Fleur Anderson said: ‘Many applications have been turned down, leaving women with a ticking time bomb in their body. ‘They are unable to afford to get their implants removed privately, are worried that they will rupture further, and are experiencing clear side-effects.’ The MHRA acknowledged the risk of cancer for all breast implants but said PIP implants are not at greater risk than any other. Read full story Source Mail Online, 31 January 2023
  7. Content Article
    The Patient Safety Commissioner outlines the range of different stakeholders she has met within her first 100 days in office, including patients, healthcare staff, patient safety specialists and healthcare providers. She also details the number of different areas of concern that have been raised with her in this period, including: pelvic mesh complications isotretinoin side effects painful gynaecological investigations Covid vaccination concerns mental health difficulties fluoroquinolone side effects Yellow Card scheme reporting concerns about electroconvulsive therapy. The report then sets out in more detail her reflections on patient safety concerns relating to the three medical interventions covered by the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review: pelvic mesh, Sodium valproate and Primodos. She also highlights some positive areas of patient safety work she has encountered in her first 100 days in office, including the Scan 4 Safety initiative, NHS Resolution’s work on consent resources and how the new Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) is seeking to ensure that patients’ voices are included in incident investigations. The report concludes by setting out her top three priorities: 1. Culture Change The Patient Safety Commissioner plans to: hold a public consultation on the Principles of Better Patient Safety for the Patient Safety Commissioner work with healthcare leaders to put patient voice at the core of their activity and reporting amplify patients’ voices in all parts of the health system to ensure they are heard identify and highlight where patient voice is neglected challenge organisations to identify a named patient voice on all Boards and to place patient stories at the top of their meeting agendas campaign to improve the use of Yellow Card reporting campaign to see the NHS number used as the default and unique identifier ·work to ensure patients are engaged in the development of all national specifications develop the Patient Safety Commissioner website as a hub of best practice in championing patient voice. 2. Pelvic mesh The Patient Safety Commissioner plans to: co-produce resources for patients and GPs about side effects from pelvic mesh surgery work with NHS England to provide patients choice of access to specialist mesh centres work with the health system to ensure that information is available to all patients on national registries. 3. Sodium valproate The Patient Safety Commissioner plans to: support the health system to include the views of all stakeholders including patients to reduce harm from sodium valproate to the lowest possible level work with health leaders to ensure that all relevant patients are on a Pregnancy Prevention Plan (PPP) and given the necessary information collaborate with partners to ensure annual reviews are carried out by specialist prescribers work with partners across health to eliminate dispensing of sodium valproate in unlabelled white boxes work with professional regulators to streamline the advice to their registrants on sodium valproate and contraception raise patient awareness through charity collaboration.
  8. News Article
    Artificial hip and knee joints that have to be removed after failing early are to be examined routinely to save the NHS £200million a year – and reduce unnecessary pain for patients in future. Less than 1 in 100 removed implants are examined to see why they failed, so surgeons don’t learn what went wrong or pick up on potential scandals. Consultant orthopaedic surgeon Raghavendra Sidaginamale, of North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust, said: "Most removed implants are put in the bin. A wealth of information goes down the drain." Now the NHS is setting up an Implants Analysis Service, enabling hospitals to send them off to be analysed for signs of unusual wear or chemical degradation. Each year, 15,000 hip and knee replacements are replaced. If this happens within ten years, they are deemed to have failed early. Jason Wilson, of the IAS, said they are ‘like a black box flight recorder in a plane’, adding: "They hold a wealth of information we can learn from." Read full story Source: Daily Mail, 29 January 2023
  9. Content Article
    This report follows on from an evidence session held by the Select Committee on the 13 December 2022 to assess the Government’s progress against recommendations made in the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety (IMMDS) report, First Do No Harm. This featured contributions from the Government Minister Maria Caulfield MP, patients and patient groups, and representatives from NHS England and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Summary of the reports recommendations The Government should: Urgently ensure that the accepted recommendations 6 and 7 of the IMMDS review are fully implemented. Consider an alternative strategy for how to pro-actively contact pelvic mesh patients who have had the procedure about their post-operative experiences and possible side effects. Make the arrangements necessary to ensure the register of clinicians’ interests can be set up swiftly, subject to the pilot phase concluding, to prevent further delay. Move at pace to bring in the necessary secondary legislation to set this up a register of industry payments to clinicians. Ensure that the Patient Safety Commissioner for England’s ability to carry out her important role, as her duties and responsibilities is more clearly defined, is not impeded by a lack of resource for and within her office. The Department of Health and Social Care should: Respond to concerns raised about interactions and consultations with stakeholders around care schemes stemming from the review, reflecting on this experience and considering how to improve engagement with them in the future. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care should: Make a statement detailing the Patient Safety Commissioner’s review of redress schemes for the medical interventions dealt with by the IMMDS review, and what additional resources will be made available to her to undertake it. The Minister for Mental Health and Women’s Strategy should: Make a statement on the review of redress and a possible Redress Agency, with more details on what such a review would include and seek to achieve, and timeline for completion.
  10. Content Article
    It’s so important that mesh-injured women are able to access redress for their injuries, many of which are life-changing. Often, financial support is not a bonus but is necessary, as women have had to leave their jobs or reduce their hours to cope, move to accessible housing or sell their home to live with family. Many have also experienced marriage breakdown as a result of mesh complications. One in four women in Sling The Mesh need a stick to help them walk, so need to pay for mobility aids or scooters, and there are also the ongoing costs of travel to doctors and hospital appointments. Waiting times are up to four years for mesh removal, so many women cash in savings or pensions to pay for private removal which costs thousands. The psychological impact of mesh injuries also takes a toll and with long NHS mental health waiting lists, many turn to the private sector for counselling for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and trauma. Likewise, many women have difficulty accessing NHS Physiotherapy so turn to the private sector for specialised physio to help mobilise internal pelvic scar tissue which can cause ongoing pain after mesh removal. The concept of redress is about proactively correcting a wrong that has been done to a group or individual. It differs from clinical negligence, which is about identifying and proving that the actions of an individual healthcare professional or service caused specific harm. Redress involves an authority taking responsibility for harm that has been caused under its watch, whereas clinical negligence is an adversarial process with strict legal boundaries. In 2020, the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety (IMMDS) Review’s report, ‘First Do No Harm’ (Cumberlege Review), called for “a new independent Redress Agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices” to be created, based on models operating effectively in other countries.[1] This Agency was to offer women harmed by mesh a specific, non-adversarial route to compensation. However, in its official response to the report, the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) rejected this recommendation, stating that “while the government is sympathetic to the experiences of those patients who gave evidence to the report, our primary focus is on improving future medicines and medical devices safety.”[2] The Government's failure to accept the IMMDS recommendations around setting up a Redress Agency means that the clinical negligence system is the only route left to women to pursue financial compensation, and it is a long, onerous process that is often unsuccessful. Sarah’s story - failures in the clinical negligence route Sarah* has spent the last two years fighting for redress through a clinical negligence case because of injuries following pelvic mesh surgery. Over the past few years, she has gone through two episodes of mesh erosion, two surgeries and an episode of sepsis. Since the mesh device was implanted, she has also experienced fibromyalgia and arthritis of the sacroiliac joints. She recently received a letter from the Head of Clinical Negligence at the law firm she was working with, informing her that they would not take her case forward. It was unlikely to be successful as she had her surgery before complications for mesh surgery were fully understood, and prior to 2013 when National Institute for Health and Care and Excellence (NICE) guidelines for urinary stress incontinence were changed. The letter stated: "The difficulty with your claim is that your TVT/mesh insertion surgery took place quite some time ago in 2007 when this was considered to be the gold standard to treat stress urinary incontinence, because the mesh surgery was quick, relatively simple and did not require a prolonged stay in hospital. It was only later on that the problems with mesh and the risks associated with mesh became fully known.” "A court would assess your claim based on the state of medical knowledge and expertise that existed at the time you had the mesh surgery in April 2007, with the problems and risks associated with mesh only becoming known at a later stage. "Consequently, a court will take the view that the consultant advising you at the time of your surgery in 2007 could only advise you based on the state of medical knowledge that existed at that time and cannot be held legally to blame for the treatment and advice that he gave you, if the risks associated with mesh only became apparent afterwards. "Therefore, unfortunately, further to the above we believe that if your claim proceeded further with the commencement of court proceedings, we would not have a reasonable prospect of success." It is my view that, given the evidence of harm caused by pelvic mesh, a woman who underwent surgery in 2007 should be equally entitled to redress as a woman who had surgery much later. I highlighted the issue with Helen Hughes, Chief Executive of Patient Safety Learning, who responded, “When responding to the IMMDS Review, the Government rejected a recommendation to introduce a separate redress scheme for mesh on the basis that patients could take healthcare providers to court for clinical negligence, or manufacturers for product liability. However, as this case sadly illustrates, the legal complexities involved in this means that for many mesh-injured patients this is simply not an option, leaving them with no alternative route to help meet the cost of any additional care and support they may need.” A national Redress Agency is the only way to offer equitable redress A Redress Agency specifically aimed at women with pelvic mesh injuries would offer a more equitable, compassionate route to secure compensation. As well as women having a higher chance of success going through a Redress Agency, women would not be forced to face the stress of legal action that often lasts for years while dealing with the pain and limitations they live with as a result of their injuries. At the moment, it does not appear that the political will or financial provision exists to make this a reality. *name changed for anonymity Related reading Tokenism in patient engagement is unethical—but it is also dangerous. A blog by Kath Sansom Doctors’ shocking comments reveal institutional misogyny towards women harmed by pelvic mesh - a Patient Safety Learning blog “There’s no problem with the mesh”: A personal account of the struggle to get vaginal mesh removal surgery References 1 First Do No Harm. The report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, 8 July 2020 2 Government response to the report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, 21 July 2021
  11. News Article
    More than 100,000 people with type 1 diabetes in England are to be offered an artificial pancreas, which experts believe could become the “holy grail” for managing the disease. The groundbreaking device uses an algorithm to determine the amount of insulin that should be administered and reads blood sugar levels to keep them steady. A world-first trial on the NHS found it was more effective at managing diabetes than current devices and required far less input from patients. The device is now set to be rolled out across the NHS in England after it won approval from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Prof Partha Kar, national specialty adviser for diabetes at NHS England, said: “This technology has been proven to give the best control for managing type 1 diabetes and should make things like amputations, blindness, and kidney problems possibly a thing of the past.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 10 January 2023
  12. News Article
    A hospital is investigating how a pair of metal surgical forceps were left inside a patient after they had been stitched up after abdominal surgery. Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust has apologised unreservedly and said the incident at Redditch’s Alexandra hospital was “exceptionally rare”. The medical blunder only became apparent after a seven-hour abdominal procedure last month, according to BBC Midlands, when the forceps were reported to be missing. The worst fears of medics were confirmed when the missing 15cm arterial clamp was found by an X-ray while the patient was still under anaesthetic. The surgical instrument could not be immediately removed and the patient was moved to intensive care overnight before another operation was performed the next day to retrieve the clamp. It is understood the trust’s investigation will look at whether the required double-checking of all instruments was conducted before the patient was stitched up after surgery. It will also examine the end of operation signing-out process, which is supposed to ensure such errors do not happen. Read full story Source: The Guardian, 23 December 2022
  13. Content Article
    10:03:23 Witness(es): Emma Murphy, Founder, Independent Foetal Anti-Convulsant Trust (In-FACT); Janet Williams, Founder, Independent Foetal Anti-Convulsant Trust (In-FACT); Kath Sansom, Campaigner, Sling the Mesh Campaign. 10:36:55 Witness(es): Professor Sir Cyril Chantler, Deputy Chair, Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review; Simon Whale, Review Member and Communications Lead, Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review; Baroness Julia Cumberlege, Chair, Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. 11:03:10 Witness(es): Maria Caulfield MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Mental Health and Women's Strategy), Department of Health and Social Care; Dr Aidan Fowler, National Director of Patient Safety in England, Department of Health and Social Care; William Vineall, Director of NHS Quality, Safety and Investigations, Department of Health and Social Care; Celia Ingham-Clark, Medical Director for Professional Leadership and Medical Workforce, Department of Health and Social Care; Dame June Raine, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
  14. News Article
    The reform of the UK’s Medical Device regulation offers a golden opportunity to drive innovation and growth in the UK’s Life Science sector while ensuring patient safety remains at the heart of the regulatory approach. But there is an urgent need for action to ensure we do not lose this opportunity. Senior members of the Life Sciences Council, Will Quince MP, Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care, Dr June Raine, CEO, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Peter Ellingworth, CEO, Association of British HealthTech Industries (ABHI) have today announced a new agreement to accelerate the delivery of the future UK HealthTech regulatory system. Acknowledging the Chancellor’s priorities of stability and growth supported by regulatory reforms, and the importance of the success of the system to UK patients and the Life Science sector, they have formed an advisory group on behalf of the Life Sciences Council to drive the delivery of the ambition of the Life Sciences Vision to have a best in class regulatory system. The advisory group has agreed that aligned proposals will be published on three priority areas: international recognition routes for innovation system capacity. Read full press release Source; Gov.UK, 16 December 2022
  15. Content Article
    The IMMDS Review examined the response of the healthcare system in England to the harmful side effects of three medical interventions: Hormone pregnancy tests, sodium valproate and pelvic mesh implants. These interventions had resulted in a truly shocking degree of avoidable harm to patients over a period of decades, with the Review describing the healthcare system’s response to this as ‘disjointed, siloed, unresponsive and defensive’. In this report, the Government provides a progress update on the implementation of the Review’s recommendations, which is summarised below: Recommendation 1 - The government should immediately issue a fulsome apology on behalf of the healthcare system to the families affected by primodos, sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Progress update - Complete. On 9 July 2020, the day after publication of the review, the Government issued an unreserved apology on behalf of the healthcare system to the women affected, as well as their children and their families, for the time the system took to listen and respond. Recommendation 2 - The appointment of a Patient Safety Commissioner who would be an independent public leader with a statutory responsibility. Progress update - Complete. The Government appointed Dr Henrietta Hughes as the Patient Safety Commissioner for England on 12 July 2022. Recommendation 3 - A new independent Redress Agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices should be created based on models operating effectively in other countries. Progress update - The Government did not accept recommendation 3. Recommendation 4 - Separate schemes should be set up for each intervention – HPTs (hormone pregnancy tests), valproate and pelvic mesh – to meet the cost of providing additional care and support to those who have experienced avoidable harm and are eligible to claim. Progress update - The Government did not accept recommendation 4. In this report they point to NHS Resolution having now launched two claims gateways on their website to provide further support to patients who may wish to bring a clinical negligence claim in relation to pelvic mesh and sodium valproate. Recommendation 5 - Networks of specialist centres should be set up to provide comprehensive treatment, care and advice for those affected by implanted mesh; and separately for those adversely affected by medications taken during pregnancy. Progress update - Complete for specialist mesh centres. There are now nine specialist centres in operation in England. They state that this ensures that women in every region have access to these services and note that each mesh centre is led by a multidisciplinary team to ensure patients get access to the specialist care and treatment that they need, including pain management and psychological support. Ongoing for medicines in pregnancy. They state that their view was that a network of new specialist centres is not the most effective way forward to help those adversely affected by medicines taken during pregnancy. The report notes that NHS England has instead taken forward work to improve care pathways for children and families adversely affected by medicines in pregnancy. Ongoing for sodium valproate. The report states that the MHRA is introducing stronger regulatory measures to continue to reduce the number of pregnancies exposed to sodium valproate, including new patients under 55 years of age needing two specialists to document that no other medicine is effective or tolerated. It notes that work continues to improve compliance with regulatory measures, with the MHRA and NHS Digital establishing the Medicines and Pregnancy Registry to track NHS prescriptions of valproate in girls and women of childbearing age in England. In 2022 to 2023, an audit will be carried out by pharmacies to measure adherence to MHRA regulations. Recommendation 6 - The MHRA needs substantial revision, particularly in relation to adverse event reporting and medical device regulation. Progress update - Ongoing. They state that the MHRA has embarked upon an ambitious organisation-wide transformation to ensure it becomes a progressive and responsive patient-focused regulator of medical products. It notes that the Agency has been establishing a new organisational structure that improves how it listens and responds to patients and the public, developing a more responsive system for reporting adverse incidents, and strengthening the evidence to support timely and robust decisions that protect patient safety. Recommendation 7 - A central patient-identifiable database should be created by collecting key details of the implantation of all devices at the time of the operation. This can be linked to specifically created registers to research and audit the outcomes both in terms of the device safety and patient-reported outcomes measures. Progress update - Ongoing. In 2021 to 2022, a scoping exercise was undertaken to determine how best to deliver this recommendation. This provided a significant amount of learning. They state that they concluded that, for England, expanding the coverage and breadth of existing registries will best deliver harmonised data collections that contain patient, device and outcome-level data. They have an target to increase registry coverage from 15% to 80% over the next 3 years. In parallel, the report notes that the Government are working with devolved governments to develop a UK-wide approach that will enable secure data sharing, system interoperability and UK-wide coverage, where appropriate to do so. Recommendation 8 - Transparency of payments made to clinicians needs to improve. The register of the General Medical Council (GMC) should be expanded to include a list of financial and non-pecuniary interests for all doctors, as well as doctors’ particular clinical interests, and their recognised and accredited specialisms. In addition, there should be mandatory reporting for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries of payments made to teaching hospitals, research institutions and individual clinicians. Progress update - Ongoing. The report states that they are currently piloting systems for doctors to declare their interests in NHS and independent settings across the UK. Full implementation will begin in 2023, subject to a successful review of the pilot systems. Once this system is in place for doctors, they note that they will then consider systems for other healthcare professionals. The report also notes that the Government has legislated through the Health and Care Act 2022 to enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make regulations requiring companies to publish or report information about their payments to the healthcare sector. The Government is reviewing the information gathered from stakeholders to develop plans on how best to deliver on the objectives of this recommendation. Recommendation 9 - The government should immediately set up a taskforce to implement this review’s recommendations. Its first task should be to set out a timeline for their implementation. Progress update - Not accepted. The Government did not accept recommendation 9. In this report they point to having instead established a Patient Reference Group to inform work to develop the 2021 government response. The Patient Reference Group published an independent report on their work in July 2021. Related reading Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review: A joint letter from the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, Sling The Mesh and In-Fact, 17 February 2022. Kath Sansom, 10 problems with NHS England’s specialist mesh centres, 3 October 2022. Patient Safety Spotlight interview with Marie Lyon, chair of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, 22 February 2022. Patient Safety Learning, A year on from the Cumberlege Review: Initial reflections on the Government’s response, 26 July 2021.
×