4.1 The sponsor claimed that the geko device addresses unmet need by delivering venous thromboembolism prophylaxis to patient groups who cannot currently use the standard mechanical means of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.
4.2 The sponsor proposed that use of the geko device would only be initiated in a hospital setting and would not result in changes to the current pathway or involve additional system resources. The External Assessment Centre agreed with these assumptions.
4.3 The Committee considered the size of the population described in the decision problem of the scope. It heard differing estimates from expert advisers, the External Assessment Centre and the sponsors, ranging from a 'small' population to around 50,000 patients per year. The Committee concluded that there is a population with an unmet need but that it is not possible to accurately estimate this population.