Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:58:34.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of Clinical Technologies

Importance for Provision and Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Bryan Jennett
Bryan Jennett
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow King's Fund Institute, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The author contends that the diffusion and use of modern medical technologies has had a profound impact on the hospital environment, the doctor-patient relationship, and the humanity of the patient. On these grounds the author argues for a rigorous, comprehensive, and ongoing assessment of diagnostic and therapeutic technologies. He stresses the importance of developing standards by which to judge the human and economic impact of particular technologies. These studies would decrease the inappropriate use of medical technology and would provide guidelines to improve current use.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , July 1988 , pp. 435 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Anonymous. Input and outcome. Lancet, 1987, 1, 1182–83.Google Scholar
2.Assessing medical technologies. Institute of Medicine Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies in Clinical Use. (Mosteller), Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986.Google Scholar
3.Bennett, K. J., Feeny, D., Guyatt, G. H., et al. Guidelines for health technology assessment: The efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency of neonatal intensive care. International Journal for Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 873–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Bulger, R.Technology, bureaucracy and healing. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
5.Danielsson, H., Jacoby, I., & Vang, J. (Eds). Technology assessment in policy, clinical and methodological issues. International Journal for Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1986, 2, 5–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Fuchs, V. R.The ‘rationing’ of medical care. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 1572–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Grimes, D. S.Rationing health care. Lancet, 1987, 1, 615–16.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Jennett, B.Surgeon of the seventies: Technologist, manager, scholar? Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, 1974, 19, 1–12.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Jennett, B.Resource allocation for the severely brain damaged. Archives of Neurology, 1976, 33, 595–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Jennett, B.Benefits and burdens of surgery. British Journal of Surgery, 1985, 72, 939–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Jennett, B.High technology medicine, benefits and burdens, 2nd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
12.Jennett, B. Consumer views of medical technology in UK. Joint Commission on Accreditation of hospitals, (in press).Google Scholar
13.Jennett, B. Decisions to limit treatment. British Medical Journal, (in press).Google Scholar
14.Jennett, B.High technology medicine and quality of life. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1987, 3, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Murray, G. D.Use of an international data bank to compare outcome following severe head injury in different centres. Statistics in Medicine, 1986, 5, 103–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Murray, G. D.Assessing the performance and clinical impact of a computerized prognostic system in severe head injury. Statistics in Medicine, 1986, 5, 403–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.McPherson, K.Small area variations in the use of common surgical procedures: An international comparison of New England, England and Norway. New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, 307, 1310–14.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Park, R. E., Fink, A., Brook, R. M., et al. Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. American Journal of Public Health, 1986, 76, 766–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Proceedings of a workshop. Evaluations of therapy. Statistics in Medicine, 1984, 3, 305–475.Google Scholar
20.Sacks, H. S., Berrier, M. A., Reitman, D., et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 1987, 316, 450–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Thurow, L. C.Learning to say no. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 1569–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Wennberg, J. H.Dealing with medical practice variations: A proposal for action. Health Affairs, 1984, 3, 6–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Williams, A.Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. British Medical Journal, 1985, 291, 326–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed