How are HIV services in the UK currently identifying and managing patients with cognitive impairment? Results of a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: The 2018 British HIV Association (BHIVA) Standards of Care state that people living with HIV should be questioned annually for symptoms of cognitive or memory decline. If symptoms are identified, screening should be considered and services offered if impairment is detected. We examined the availability of services, along with current practices related to the screening and management of cognitive impairment in people living with HIV, in UK HIV services. METHODS: A survey was distributed via email to all UK HIV services leads on the BHIVA audit mailing list. Questions related to screening practices, referral pathways, and the management of patients with suspected cognitive impairment. Descriptive analyses were conducted on all data returned. RESULTS: In total, 190 surveys were distributed. Of the respondents, 39 (60.6%) stated that they undertook screening for cognitive impairment in their HIV service, and 30 (47.6%) reported not offering a specific service or referral pathway. Awareness of BHIVA screening guidelines was high (49 [84.48%]), yet 15 (30.6%) respondents stated that they were not followed in their service and 41 (71.9%) felt there was a need for training on screening, assessment, and management of cognitive impairment in patients with HIV within their department. CONCLUSIONS: Despite no directive, a substantial number of HIV services surveyed are routinely screening patients for cognitive impairment without guidance on when to screen and which screening tools should be used. A UK consensus on screening, along with guidance and training for services, may help to resolve this gap in service provision.

Identifying and selecting new procedures for health technology assessment: a decade of nice experience in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze the experience of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in identifying new procedures entering the United Kingdom (UK) healthcare system, for assessment and publication of recommendations on their use. This system is designed to provide guidance in an area where regulation is lacking worldwide. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all procedures notified to the Interventional Procedures Programme (NICE) between 2002 and 2012. Notifications were analyzed year by year for their source (who notified them), clinical specialties involved, and whether guidance was subsequently published. RESULTS: A total of 1,094 procedures were notified by clinicians (51 percent), and by others, including hospitals (6 percent), horizon scanners (5 percent), patients (4 percent), private health insurers (4 percent), and medical device manufacturers (3 percent). Guidance was published on 44 percent of procedures notified to the program. There was a decrease in the numbers of procedures notified during 2003-2012 (p = .049). There were notifications across all specialties, with the largest numbers in general surgery (125), urology (104), orthopedics (99), interventional radiology (93), cardiology (82), and obstetrics and gynecology (82). CONCLUSIONS: The "open" NICE Web portal allows anyone to notify new procedures, aiming to maximize the opportunity of identifying all those procedures entering clinical practice. This has resulted in identification of large numbers of procedures from across the whole range of medical specialties. The fact that similar proportions of procedures notified from diverse sources have been selected for assessment and publication of practice recommendations suggests that this inclusive approach is worthwhile.