One flagship. A wider medicines intelligence ambition.

The core ambition is connected medicines work. A team should be able to understand the evidence case, the relevant decision, the responsibilities for implementation and the intended value that will be examined afterwards.

PHARMORIS received a £49,928 Innovate UK award for its generics optimisation development programme. That support helped establish a focused opportunity for development. The current portfolio builds around the programme and the evidence needed to shape useful evaluation propositions.

An agreed decision creates practical questions: who owns the next step, what has to happen first and which local constraint could hold it back? Clear responsibilities and dependencies help turn an attractive opportunity into work an organisation can actually plan.

Our implementation direction examines the connection between the case and those actions. A useful evaluation would compare follow-through, rework and staff effort with the current process. The design needs to earn its place by clarifying the work and supporting the people accountable for it.

Medicines availability can change the choices an organisation has. A supply-related decision may involve operational information, alternative approaches and professional responsibilities that extend beyond one team.

This research direction concerns how suitable information, constraints and uncertainty could support an accountable comparison. The task, available data and participating organisations would determine a specific proposition. We are interested in a clearly bounded decision that can be evaluated fairly.

PHARMORIS-SCOT investigates AI-assisted prioritisation, regulatory dossier preparation and deployment modelling for NHS generic-medicines adoption. The local decision process and evidence requirements give that development work its context.

PHARMORIS-INDIA explores how a defined medicines problem and local users could shape an appropriate development pathway. These are programme settings within a wider ambition. The relevant professional roles, data access, purchasing arrangements and evaluation requirements need to be established in each setting.

A proposed review of where discharge medicines pathways lose momentum: expected referrals, observed activity, action and completion. The aim is to help commissioners and pharmacy teams identify which gaps justify intervention, which need better information and what a useful next step would be.

A proposed comparison of medicines-service options, bringing expected benefit, delivery costs and conditions for success into the same decision. Hospital and provider economics would remain separate, so each side can see who carries the work, who receives the benefit and what would make the option worthwhile.

Our planned evidence directions include review quality and effort, implementation follow-through, appropriate reliance on AI and the economics of adoption. Each needs a relevant task, a credible comparator and a result that can inform a decision.

For a potential healthcare use case, intended purpose shapes the evidence and assurance requirements. NICE’s evidence framework provides a useful planning reference. Public programme material can explain the evaluation questions and comparison principles while preserving confidential methods, unpublished results and partner information.

Bring a defined task and the decision it supports. We can discuss the fit with PHARMORIS and a focused development or evaluation proposition.