JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH  March 2012

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH March 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: medicines heathcare products regulatory authority Q's about transparency

From:

"Faulkner, Alex" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Faulkner, Alex

Date:

Sat, 3 Mar 2012 13:17:48 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (33 lines)

Kate,

you raise some important questions but the field of medical device regulation is complex. The European Commission has been reviewing the system for over 2 years and the working of Notified Bodies is one of the key issues. In fact the MHRA in the UK isn't a Notified Body i.e a centre or company that assesses products and grants CE-marks indicating consumer safety allowing their release to EU markets (one in the UK is the BSI - British Standards Institute). In my view the key issue directly raised by the current breast implants scandal, apart from criminality, and amongst much media misreporting, is the manufacturing site inspection system, not the pre-market assessment/authorisation that NBs undertake though this doubtless could be improved. Implanatable devices such as breast and hip impants were raised to the highest level of risk classification, and thus requirements for pre-market data, in the EU system a few years ago but that in itself of course can't guarantee that incidents won't happen. There was some critical discussion of the issues in the British Medical Journal a few months ago.

bw
Alex Faulkner
-------------------------------------------------
Dr Alex Faulkner
Department of Political Economy
King's College London

tel. +44 (0)7980 374154 or (0)1273 473421
new book on medical technology: http://www.palgrave.com/PRODUCTS/Title.aspx?PID=275650
personal page: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/people/academic/faulkner.aspx
________________________________________
From: Evidence based health (EBH) [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of KATE BLOOR [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 03 March 2012 12:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: medicines heathcare products regulatory authority Q's about transparency

The MHRA stands for 'medicines and healthcare products regulatory authority', and they operate under an EU directive as the UK's 'notifiable' body for IVMD's which is in-vitro-medical devices (only NHS offiicially) i.e. tests and equipment used in medical care. The have a responsiblity for 'post-use regulation of devices' and patient safety and are part of the DOH. The are currently dealing with the breast implant issues, and more recently an article in the Independant suggests there are serious problems with NHS hip-replacements too.

I hope someone will know something about this, however, I suspect that information is not easily available.

My questions are;
1. How does an issue or set of issues, become subject to a full blown investigation into a device, what criteria are used to make that assessment? There is some kind of risk assessment but its really not clear on their website what methodology is used.? What approach is taken to the is assessment of risk, is this risk in terms of level of harm, and how is that assessed, or is it numbers of people affected, for example, or is it ad-hoc and not driven by an set approach etc?
2. If a full blown investigation is launched into the potential failure of a product or device, what fixed or pre-dertermined approach or method is normally used to assess it, and does this take into account the use of the device in situ - what degree of emphasis is placed on the experience of the device from the patients point of view? Are the cases related to the interviewed, or data collected about them and so on?
3. When they use their 'experts' database , and is this an idependant process of selection, reflecting variety of disciplines or perspectives?
4. Is there any clear method to assessing evidence related to the device,such as peer reviewed science or clinical medicine etc, for their examination of the basis of claims of device failure - and would this include for example, a researcher examining the evidence using methods such as meta-analysis. I noticed that the new advice they sent out about information available on SSRI's subscribed to young people, was based on the work of a working-party that had been going for some time, and also, one published paper on the subject.
5. How does the MHRA explain their processes, and methods eg. 1/2/3/4 and are these clear to the ordinary public, or parts of the medical profession who might wish to report?
Any help would be appreciated.
Kate Bloor
LymeResearchUK

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager