This action by the Department of Health is a disgrace. On the same
page that the BMJ reported this it was noted that there are believed to be
over a quarter of a million admissions to UK hospital related to adverse
drug reactions. There is no doubt from research here and in the US that a
significant proportion of these, perhaps the majority, are avoidable.
Presumably then prescribers' knowledge of drugs has room for improvement
and adding resources would seem more logical than removing one of the most
important. Naturally cost constraints are given as the reason for this
action but the cynic might wonder. Does NICE want an independent source of
information which may disagree with its conclusions? And does the
pharmaceutical industry welcome a publication which often says that
"novel" drugs are not so novel after all? If they are content with that
perhaps they could fund the continued distribution of the DTB, at least
for a time.
Rapid Response:
Cost-cutting, or worse?
This action by the Department of Health is a disgrace. On the same
page that the BMJ reported this it was noted that there are believed to be
over a quarter of a million admissions to UK hospital related to adverse
drug reactions. There is no doubt from research here and in the US that a
significant proportion of these, perhaps the majority, are avoidable.
Presumably then prescribers' knowledge of drugs has room for improvement
and adding resources would seem more logical than removing one of the most
important. Naturally cost constraints are given as the reason for this
action but the cynic might wonder. Does NICE want an independent source of
information which may disagree with its conclusions? And does the
pharmaceutical industry welcome a publication which often says that
"novel" drugs are not so novel after all? If they are content with that
perhaps they could fund the continued distribution of the DTB, at least
for a time.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests