Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
IntroductionThe Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) provides advice on which new medicines should be accepted for routine use by the NHS in Scotland. To help increase the accessibility of the advice, SMC produces public information summaries, which have been published on the SMC website since 2018. We conducted an evaluation to investigate if the public summaries are achieving their purpose and subsequently help inform improvements from a user perspective. The objectives were to determine how the public summaries are being used; what users like and what could be improved; and if they have achieved a greater understanding of decisions.
MethodsThe first stage of the evaluation involved surveying patient groups (organizations that represent the interests of patients, families and carers) to investigate how they use the public summaries. We then conducted workshops with patient groups and Public Partners (members of the public that volunteer with Healthcare Improvement Scotland) to gather perspectives on the content, language and layout of a selection of public summaries.
ResultsThe survey responses (n = 14) illustrate that the public summaries are being used in a variety of ways. The majority (n = 10) of patient groups reported using the public summaries to help explain SMC decisions to the people they support.
The workshops highlighted that participants found the public summaries clear and helpful. In general, patient groups felt the level of detail and language used in the public summaries improved their understanding of SMC decisions compared to other sources of information, such as the press release or Detailed Advice Document.
There were a number of suggested improvements, including changing the layout (so the SMC decision appears first) and providing definitions for some technical terms. Where actionable, these recommendations have been implemented.
ConclusionsWorking in partnership with patient groups and Public Partners has enabled SMC to further strengthen public summaries, and patient engagement more broadly. Improvements have ensured that SMC's decisions are communicated clearly, helping to increase accessibility.
