GrahamB wrote: We are told by a poster on another board that GA told them that NICE was a "clerical error"
Exactly how doesn an evidenced based process, by experts, including one consultant paid by VPT change this, based on a clerical error?
I had predicted the NICE outcome, and stand by my overall conclusion
We will wait and see....
•"Experts advised that more evidence is needed before VMS+ can be routinely used in the NHS. Experts disagreed about where VMS+ would provide the most benefit in the care pathway. One expert felt that VMS+ would provide little additional value than existing technologies."
Source:NICE Experts Comments
Source:Abstracted from UK NICE MIB Ventripoint
WHAT did the Uk NICE expert panel(included a VPT paid consultant say about VPT?
"Two experts stated that, as VMS+ can be used with standard 2D echocardiography equipment, it requires less retraining of staff than current available 3D systems. However, the experts noted that VMS+ is more time consuming than fully automated echocardiograph systems, as it requires healthcare professionals to manually plot points on anatomical landmarks of the heart. Two experts felt that VMS+ would cost slightly more than current standard care due to the additional time it could take to complete an echocardiogram."
•"Experts advised that more evidence is needed before VMS+ can be routinely used in the NHS. Experts disagreed about where VMS+ would provide the most benefit in the care pathway. One expert felt that VMS+ would provide little additional value than existing technologies."
Source:NICE Experts Comments
Source:Abstracted from UK NICE MIB Ventripoint