Comments on this technology were invited from clinical experts working in the field and relevant patient organisations. The comments received are individual opinions and do not represent NICE's view.
Five experts contributed to the development of this briefing. Four were familiar with the technology and 3 had experience of using 1 or more of the technologies. One was not familiar and had no previous experience.
Four experts believed the technology was a novel or innovative concept for assisting neuroradiologists. One believed the technology was not a novel concept and replicated review by a radiologist. Three experts were not aware of any competing technologies. Two commented that there is a lot of commercial interest in the field because of the modest entry costs.
All experts believed the technology could improve the speed of diagnosis and the service for people that need urgent diagnosis and treatment. One believed the technology would be most beneficial to patients eligible for thrombectomy and could reduce patient transfer time. Two believed the technology could result in fewer errors in CT brain scan reporting. One believed the technology would be most beneficial to patients during times when expert neuroradiology skills were lacking. One believed the technology resulted in a faster diagnosis, meaning downstream savings, but only if the diagnostic accuracy better than current care.
All experts felt the technology would benefit from more evidence to show safety. All experts recognised the potential systematic benefits of the technology, including improved triage of patients and faster treatment, a reduction in reviewers' time needed per scan and a more standardised diagnosis. Two felt IT adjustment would be needed and 1 did not. Experts' opinions about the cost of adopting the technology were mixed: 2 felt the technology would cost more than standard care and 2 believed the technology would be cost saving because of reduced resource use and reduced costs associated with long-term disability. One said the technology could increase time and costs because of careful review by radiologists to ensure accuracy, as well as legal questions relating to access to NHS databases.
All experts believe the technology would be used alongside standard care. Two experts that have used the technology describe it as user friendly. One added an additional comment acknowledging the black box nature of the technology. Two said a potential barrier to adoption might be the cost. One felt the compatibility with the varied hardware and software used by radiologists in the NHS might affect adoption. One believed more safety data would help, 1 believed evidence to show patient and systematic benefit would aid adoption. One commented that the technology might raise questions about the legalities of whether the company or the clinician is responsible for the correct diagnosis.