Volume 3

Medical research and the NHS reforms / House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
Date:
1995
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Medical research and the NHS reforms / House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    35/404 (page 131)
    24 January 1995] [ Continued RECOMMENDATION: THAT GENERAL PRACTICE BE INCLUDED IN THE THINKING ON PRE-PROTOCOL AND CURIOSITY DRIVEN RESEARCH RECOMMENDATION: THAT ALL STATEMENTS ABOUT PRE-PROTOCOL RESEARCH AND CURIOSITY DRIVEN RESEARCH SHOULD ALWAYS REFER TO NHS GENERAL PRACTICES AS WELL AS NHS HOSPITALS (5) PROVIDER SUPPORTED RESEARCH IN THE NHS PARAGRAPH 3.39 The Culyer Committee refers again to pre-protocol work and curiosity driven work in paragraph 3.39, where they recommend continuation of funding for NHS providers. The College agrees that this is logical, but draws the Select Committee’s attention to an anomaly in that there is no analogous NHS provider organisation for general practice. Hospital consultants receive NHS support from acute NHS trusts and other consultants receive NHS support for their research from Community NHS Trusts, but the FHSAs which are the organisational NHS equivalent for general practice have never been funded to support research. The Culyer Committee later in paragraph 3.41 again encourages providers to contribute extra to local research. The College again supports this as long as active steps are taken to ensure a level playing field for primary care research. The College understands that several regional health authorities are funding academic posts in many specialties including in particular, public health, up to and including chairs in universities. Now that the FHSAs in England are merging with health authorities to form NHS commissions there is a need to ensure a level playing field for primary care. The College welcomes the use of the sentence in paragraph 3.68 “It is time to place R&D in primary and community care settings on an equal footing with the acute sector’’. It accepts the logic of ““managed competition”’. RECOMMENDATION: THAT THERE SHOULD BE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR PRIMARY CARE RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES AND THEN THE REGIONAL OUTPOSTS OF THE NHS EXECUTIVE SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF REPORTING ANNUALLY ON THE AMOUNT OF RESEARCH SUPPORT PROVIDED FOR BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CARE WITHIN THEIR GEOGRAPHICAL AREA RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE NHS DIRECTOR SHOULD PUBLISH AN ANNUAL REPORT AS HE TAKES THE NHS RESEARCH STRATEGY FORWARD CLASSIFYING R&D EXPENDITURE INTO PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CARE (6) THREE CATEGORIES OF FUNDING FOR NHS R&D PARAGRAPH 3.46 This radical approach cuts through much previous thinking and clarifies the issues usefully. The College warmly supports this three point categorisation as long as there is a level playing field for both service support and the maintenance of research facilities between primary and secondary care. (7) ACCESS TO PROFESSIONALS WORKING IN PRIMARY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH SETTINGS PARAGRAPH 3.71 The Culyer Committee proposes that “funds for service support as well as for the direct costs of R&D are made accessible to professionals working in primary and community health care settings”’. Naturally, the College looked specially for this proposal and is pleased to endorse it. The College was also pleased to note the inclusion of a specific mention of “research facilities” in relation to primary care in paragraph 3.69. It believes this needs highlighting. RECOMMENDATION: THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION OF THE “RESEARCH FACILITIES” FUNDED SHOULD BE IN GENERAL PRACTICE/PRIMARY CARE AND THAT THIS PROPORTION BE PUBLISHED ANNUALLY The fact that primary care will now also be eligible for support for research facilities, where it can demonstrate appropriate research capacity, should be drawn to the attention of all health authorities/ FHSAs/Commissions. (8) NATIONAL FORUM PARAGRAPH 3.60 FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH 3.14 The College agrees that a national forum would be helpful and would be pleased to play a part in it.