OBJECTIVES: To explore and test methods for the operation of a national Early Warning System (EWS) in Denmark and to support decision making by the Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment on this issue. METHODS: On the basis of literature reviews, information from members of EuroScan, and supported by clinical experts and stakeholders, existing methods were adapted and new methods were developed as part of a feasibility study. RESULTS: Approximately 200 technologies in 30 specialties were identified on the basis of information by EuroScan. A new instrument was developed to distinguish between important and unimportant technologies (filtering). Clinical experts in six specialties applied the instrument to sixty-two technologies in their respective fields, of which nine (15%) were judged potentially important for the Danish health care system. For priority setting, adapting a Dutch instrument to the Danish context was discussed. In principle, the instrument was acceptable, but several changes were proposed, for example, relating to the decentralized structure of the Danish health care system. For early assessment, the format and methods applied by SBU and Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA) were compared and applied to pharmaceuticals (glitazones in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus) and a procedure (embolization of uterine fibromas). Given the main target group of the Danish EWS, local decision makers, the CCOHTA format was preferred. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the study have laid the foundation for an EWS using appropriate methods adapted to local circumstances. On the basis of the findings, a decision was made to start an EWS.
OBJECTIVES: To explore and test methods for the operation of a national Early Warning System (EWS) in Denmark and to support decision making by the Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment on this issue. METHODS: On the basis of literature reviews, information from members of EuroScan, and supported by clinical experts and stakeholders, existing methods were adapted and new methods were developed as part of a feasibility study. RESULTS: Approximately 200 technologies in 30 specialties were identified on the basis of information by EuroScan. A new instrument was developed to distinguish between important and unimportant technologies (filtering). Clinical experts in six specialties applied the instrument to sixty-two technologies in their respective fields, of which nine (15%) were judged potentially important for the Danish health care system. For priority setting, adapting a Dutch instrument to the Danish context was discussed. In principle, the instrument was acceptable, but several changes were proposed, for example, relating to the decentralized structure of the Danish health care system. For early assessment, the format and methods applied by SBU and Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA) were compared and applied to pharmaceuticals (glitazones in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus) and a procedure (embolization of uterine fibromas). Given the main target group of the Danish EWS, local decision makers, the CCOHTA format was preferred. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the study have laid the foundation for an EWS using appropriate methods adapted to local circumstances. On the basis of the findings, a decision was made to start an EWS.