NHS to get technology fast lane to roll out new equipment more quickly after it passes trials
The 'innovator passport' is part of Health Secretary Wes Streeting 's bid to cut red tape and modernise the service.
1
He said: 'For too long, Britain 's leading scientific minds have been held back by needless admin.
'Suppliers are repeatedly asked for the same data in different formats by different trusts.
'These innovator passports will save time and reduce duplication, meaning our life sciences sector can work hand in hand with the health service and make Britain a powerhouse for medical technology."
Under the new system, sign-off from one central office after a pilot trial will be enough for something to be funded and used nationwide.
Examples of kit not yet being widely used despite successful trials include better wound dressings and rapid flu tests.
Mr Streeting added 'Frustrated patients will no longer have to face a postcode lottery for lifesaving products.'
Sam Roberts, chief of spending watchdog the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, said: 'Access to life-changing technologies that address the most urgent needs will no longer be a case of a postcode lottery.
'Patients will get access wherever they live, the NHS will get better value by buying at scale, and we can stop relying on outdated tools that lead to poorer outcomes.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
28 minutes ago
- BBC News
Disabled NHS employee wins £233,000 payout from Suffolk trust
A disabled NHS employee has received more than £233,000 in compensation after it was found she was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against by a trust. Kelly Ruddock resigned from her role as a medical secretary at West Suffolk Hospital's mental health complex Wedgwood House, in Bury St Edmunds, in September left after being told she was required to take on a "ward based" role, which she could not fulfil because of her "substantial disabilities".An employment tribunal ruled the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust had failed to make reasonable adjustments for Mrs Ruddock and she had been a "victim of unlawful discrimination and unfairly dismissed". The trust apologised to Mrs Ruddock for "what she experienced and the distress that was caused". Mrs Ruddock started working as a medical secretary in July 2017, having previously been employed by the trust as an agency worker in has a number of health conditions including fibromyalgia and the lasting effects of a spinal injury sustained in a she carried out certain movements she would experience pain and on some occasions her back would spasm, leaving her immobile for up to 30 an administration review, she was told she would become a senior ward administrator – a role which would be "predominantly ward based".She feared she would "suffer a significant exacerbation of her symptoms" if she worked on a ward, concerns which an occupational health report said were valid. As part of the trust's redeployment policy – which applies to staff who, for example, have ill health – Mrs Ruddock was interviewed for a different meeting the criteria for the job it was instead given to another candidate who was not requiring employment tribunal ruled the trust had "failed" to follow its redeployment policy and that Mrs Ruddock should have been appointed to that role. 'Substantial disadvantage' The trust said that in a ward-based role Mrs Ruddock's day-to-day job would actually have remained "unchanged".The tribunal panel ruled that was never communicated to Mrs Ruddock and, if it had been, "she would have remained in post" and not resigned."A later advertisement for the post described it as 'ward based', so we do not accept it was the intention for the post to remain as it was," the panel the tribunal, the trust also accepted that working in a ward-based environment would have put Mrs Ruddock at a "substantial disadvantage in comparison with those who are not disabled". Jeremy Over, the chief people officer at the trust, said he respected the decision and outcome of the tribunal and that "changes to benefit our staff and enhance our culture" had been made."We launched a new reasonable adjustments toolkit to better support staff with a disability and prevent similar situations occurring in the future," he said. Follow Suffolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
BBC News
29 minutes ago
- BBC News
Suffolk woman's care home death preventable
A woman's death could potentially have been prevented if care home workers had raised the rails on the side of her bed, a coroner has Sore died on 8 November 2023 after suffering a large subdural haematoma – a type of bleed on the 84-year-old had fallen from her bed at North Court Care Home, in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, twice before her death. In a Prevention of Future Deaths Report, Suffolk coroner Darren Stewart ruled it was "probable" the falls had made a "material contribution to her injury and death".Maven Healthcare said it was taking steps "to prevent a similar incident from occurring again". "It was apparent there was a less than diligent focus on risk assessment and mitigation," said Mr Stewart. Mrs Sore, who was admitted to a care home in 2017 and had atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure, suffered a stroke in 2014 and fell and fractured her neck in 2023 she only had mobility on her left side and needed hoisting into and out of bed and used an electric wheelchair. After being deemed at risk of falling from her bed, it was ruled the railings on the side of her bed should be raised whenever she occupied she fell out of her bed on 14 October 2023 and again on 20 both occasions she was assessed and no obvious injuries were found, but on 25 October her condition deteriorated and she was taken to determined the bleed on her brain was unsuitable for surgical intervention and she was discharged back to her care home for palliative care before dying of "accidental causes". 'Cultural problems' Mr Stewart said the failure to secure the bed rails was the responsibility of multiple employees, "giving rise to the concern that this was a cultural problem" at the also said staff would "regularly fail to implement" mitigation measures."In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken," he said. 'Significant improvements' Maven Healthcare, which acquired the home after Mrs Sore's death, told the BBC "significant improvements" had been made to the home."We remain fully committed to transparency, learning, and continuous improvement, and will continue to support the coroner's process," a spokesperson said."We extend our condolences to her family and loved ones." Follow Suffolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Reuters
31 minutes ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - AI dooms the billable hour – and Big Law earnings
LONDON, July 2 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Artificial intelligence promises to save time for white-collar workers. If true, that could be bad news for companies that bill clients by the hour. Law firms, auditors and other professional-services outfits might find ways to mitigate the financial hit. But there's no getting around the fact that automation risks devaluing part of the pricey service they're offering. The 'billable hours' model dates to Reginald Heber Smith, a legendary managing partner of Hale and Dorr between 1919 and 1956, who 'pioneered the rationalization of the modern law firm', as described, opens new tab by its descendant White Shoe outfit WilmerHale. At heart, billing by the hour means getting staff to meticulously track the time spent on projects so that they can invoice clients accordingly. Beancounters and tax advisers at groups like Deloitte are also heavy users of so-called timesheets. About 82% of U.S. law firm partners' work is charged by the hour, Thomson Reuters Institute research shows, while such revenue makes up 65% of income at U.S. audit firms, according to, opens new tab the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants. Rates can be eye-popping. The most senior partners at elite firms, like Kirkland & Ellis or Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, can bill up to $3,000 an hour. The rate for junior lawyers can be $400, according to LexisNexis's Sean Fitzpatrick, or sometimes much more at White Shoe firms. It's normal, opens new tab in Big Law to charge out juniors at multiples of their salaries, which can be a nice earner for the top partners. But AI, particularly so-called AI agents which work autonomously, are now threatening to undermine the time-honoured practice. Goldman Sachs analysts estimated, opens new tab in a 2023 report that 44% of legal tasks in the United States could be automated. It might sound like a good thing that an AI agent could draft a non-disclosure agreement in minutes, or instantly synthesise board minutes for an audit. Yet a perverse outcome of the billable hour structure is that being more productive, all else equal, can mean generating less revenue. According to American Bar Association guidelines, opens new tab published in July, lawyers can only charge for actual time spent on tasks, even if AI allows them to perform them faster. Compounding the problem is the fact that professional-services firms may face a chunky upfront IT bill to get the new software up and running. Only one-third of tax firms surveyed, opens new tab by Thomson Reuters reckon they can directly pass on generative AI investment costs to customers, implying that developing or buying slick new AI agents will initially eat into profit margins. There are no painless ways to respond to this double whammy. One extreme option, in theory, would be to let AI agents replace a big chunk of the junior staff. Clients pay partners for their wisdom and personal touch, not the grunt work. The implication is that seniors could keep charging themselves out even if the rest of the firm becomes populated by faceless AI robots. And to the extent that some juniors spend time on work that can't be billed, agents could boost profitability. Associates, who are generally younger members of staff, are already shrinking as a proportion of law-firm headcount – to 40% in recent years compared with 45% from 2005 to 2009, according to Thomson Reuters, opens new tab. One problem with this option, other than its heartlessness, is that firms need a constant pipeline of juniors to repopulate the partnership. Who else will replace the old guard when they finally cash out to hit the golf course full time? It's also far from clear that the hallucination-prone software is ready for the big time, implying that a horde of associates may still be needed to check AI agents' accuracy. That points to a different solution: moving away from billable hours. It's already happened at the elite strategy consultancies like McKinsey & Company, Bain & Company and Boston Consulting Group, who often charge flat project fees tied to specific outcomes. Doing the same would flip the AI equation for law and accountancy firms: productivity improvements could boost margins rather than hurt them. There's a precedent in the legal world too: Allen & Overy in 2002 created a subscription-based business called Aosphere, whose lawyers give advice online to 1,200 clients. 'We don't even do time sheets', its website claims, opens new tab. Buyout shop Inflexion and Endicott Capital agreed to invest in the division in 2023 at an unspecified valuation, suggesting that the model may hold some promise. But it's a different type of service to advising on a complex deal or piece of litigation. The risk is that it will be tough to systematise pricing across the vast variety of projects. Doing so might be easier for beancounters, since audits can in theory share a common overarching process. But no two lawsuits, for example, are the same. Switching to a project-fee approach puts the onus back on professional-services firms to judge how many resources a clients' work will take. The bigger problem, however, is that automating tasks makes it harder to charge a margin. Under the classic law-firm model, for example, revenue gets split equally three ways between overhead costs, salaries and partner profit. The implication is that seniors should charge juniors out at a minimum of three times their pay. Yet clients may balk if Big Law tries to apply the same logic to an AI agent. Why should a White Shoe firm add a markup to software that it just bought from someone else? Corporate clients could argue that they could just get their own AI agents instead. It's a management challenge that Hale and Dorr's attorney mastermind Reginald Heber Smith would probably have relished. Solving it will require moving beyond the billable hour. Follow Karen Kwok on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab.
