ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Monitoring the safe delivery of new invasive interventional procedures and devices: an analysis of NHS organisation policies.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The governance of surgical innovation in the UK National Health Service.The British journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe introduction and monitoring of innovative invasive procedures and devices (IP/Ds) was included in the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety (IMMDS) Review led by Baroness Cumberlege. Currently, innovative IP/Ds may be undertaken with local National Health Service (NHS) organisation approval via new procedure committees (NPCs) or approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee (NICE IPAC) provides guidance for appropriate approvals. Outcome monitoring is performed to inform decisions about continuing with the new IP/D or abandoning/pausing if safety data show signals of harm; this is the responsibility of local hospitals. Hospital policies for this process have hitherto not been investigated.
aimTo explore local hospital NPC processes for monitoring clinical and safety outcomes and decision-making regarding the delivery of new IP/Ds.
methodsNHS organisation policies for the introduction of new IP/Ds from England and Wales were systematically examined using a standardised extraction form developed a priori. All policies and associated documents were analysed using the principles of content analysis, and information extracted included (1) the collection of safety and outcome data for approved IP/Ds; (2) requirements to adhere to NICE guidance and (3) how committees decide to abandon/pause the use of new IP/Ds.
resultsAll policies (n=113) included information about monitoring outcomes of new IP/Ds. Substantial variation between hospitals in monitoring requirements was observed. Just 66 provided details of safety reporting oversight methods. Only 72 policies explicitly recommended following NICE IPAC guidance for the IP. Information about how decisions were made to abandon/pause new IP/Ds was included in 25 policies.
conclusionThere is a disparity among hospitals in how outcome and safety data of new IP/Ds are monitored. This has implications for patient safety. Our findings support the IMMDS report recommendations for the need for better oversight and governance of innovative IP/Ds, including collecting and sharing robust outcome data to inform decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.