Follow us: @csjmagazine
Sponsored by
News
Patients ‘value NHS diagnostic services’ but continue to face barriers to access
UK patients want better access to early and accurate diagnosis of health problems, according to new survey data from the Patients Association. Many patients would consider paying to get tests done privately if they faced a long wait for NHS tests. The survey, undertaken in partnership with
Roche Diagnostics UK and Ireland, represents the views of more than 1,000 patients from across the UK, who had received diagnostic support from the NHS in the preceding six months. Nine out of ten (90%) of the people who completed the survey said it should be easier to obtain access to the diagnostic tests they need. They also wanted: l Better understanding of why they were being sent for a test.
l Increased speed and urgency. l Improved access. l A greater sense of empowerment when it comes to diagnostic tests, results, and subsequent treatment and care.
The findings demonstrated several challenges experienced by patients in gaining access to diagnostic tests. l One-third of respondents (33%) said, when they tried to get a test, they found there were no appointments available locally. This reflects national data on the large numbers of patients unable to access diagnostic tests and services, even before consideration is given to any waiting lists for any treatment they may need.
l Almost four in five (78%) patients felt testing facilities should be provided closer to patients’
Almost nine in ten (88%) patients wanted a realistic timeline for their test results to come through and a similar number (87%) called for a better explanation of what those results meant for them and their treatment. The survey discovered patients are finding ways
homes to make access easier.
l Seven in ten (70%) wanted a clearer understanding of how to access tests. Some respondents highlighted that services are sometimes not available as advertised.
Speed and urgency of access to testing was another significant problem identified by the survey. Only one in ten (11%) of respondents said they have never had any issues getting either a test or their results, or faced no consequences if they did. For those living with long-term conditions, delays and difficulties in accessing diagnosis have had significant consequences. Nearly one in five (17%) respondents said their long-term recovery was set back significantly. Many more reported consequences for their mental and physical health, and their wider work and family life. Respondents were also unhappy about a lack of access to, and clear explanation of, test results.
around the challenges they faced. For example, when asked whether they would be willing to pay to get a test done privately if they faced a long wait or if the test they needed was not available on the NHS, three in five (60%) of respondents said they would. This included patients who did not consider themselves to be ‘rich’. Being able to test at home was seen as one way to make services more accessible. Nearly two thirds (61%) of respondents believed expanding opportunities to test at home could help speed up diagnosis. More than three quarters (77%) said they would be happy to test themselves at home. Investing in diagnostics and new technology was
supported by most respondents. For example, more than half (57%) the respondents felt the use of new technology such as artificial intelligence could speed up diagnosis and reduce pressures on the NHS – an important factor since nearly one-third (29%) said they delayed seeking tests to avoid wasting NHS time and resources. Almost nine in ten (86%) felt testing and diagnosing conditions more quickly would help reduce the NHS backlog. While patients want to feel more empowered in taking charge of their own health, they are also keen that solutions are sought to support NHS efficiency and sustainability in the longer-term. Visit:
http://tinyurl.com/3h2jzpah
Two new UK Approved Bodies to certify medical devices
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has designated two new Approved Bodies for the certification of the performance and safety of medical devices. LNE-GMED UK and Scarlet NB UK join the seven current UK Approved Bodies, increasing capacity for the certification of medical devices in the UK. LNE-GMED UK has been designated as a UK
Approved Body to assess and certify general medical devices in accordance with Part II of the UK Medical Devices Regulations 2002; Scarlet NB UK has been designated with a focus on assessing and certifying software and AI as a medical device (AI/SaMD). This comes after two of the existing UK
Approved Bodies had their scope expanded, with UL International UK now designated to assess and
certify general medical devices (in addition to in-vitro devices), and TÜV SÜD now designated to assess and certify active implantables (in addition to general medical devices). Apart from the very lowest risk devices, manufacturers must apply to a UK approved body for UKCA certification. Products can only be placed on the market in England, Wales and Scotland after they have achieved certification. Julian Beach, MHRA Interim Executive Director, Healthcare Quality and Access, said: “Our mission is to ensure that patients have
access to the high-quality, safe and effective products they need to protect their health. “Approved Bodies play a critical role in the
supply of medical devices and expanding capacity in this area is a key priority for us, to support
manufacturers to bring their products to the UK.” Before appointing an Approved Body, the MHRA conducts a detailed assessment process to ensure that organisations: l Are stable and able to undertake impartial and objective conformity assessment activities.
l Have an appropriate quality management system.
l Have the capacity and competence to undertake assessments and the processes they use meet the relevant regulatory requirements.
After successful designation, the MHRA monitors UK approved bodies’ activities including by regular audits and by witnessing some of their audits of manufacturers.
March 2024 I
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 9
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
