Across the health system | A question to investigate
Close the space between a request and an accepted action.
A task can look complete in one organisation while remaining unresolved in another. Medicines monitoring makes that gap particularly important: who requests information, who reviews it and who responds to an exception must be understood locally. Our proposed PHARMORIS direction concerns the organisational handoff, not the interpretation of an individual's result. It asks whether teams can make responsibilities and unresolved dependencies easier to examine before avoidable chasing becomes the normal way work gets done.
In the conversation.
NEUVIOR and our founder’s perspectives have appeared across science, business and technology publications.
Reporting, commentary, letters and podcast appearances | Read each feature for its format and source.
Establish the boundary of responsibility.
NHS England publishes guidance on prescribing responsibilities across care settings and on medication safety management (NHS England, n.d.; NHS England, n.d.). These provide context; the actual local arrangement still needs to be established. A referral letter, protocol and team understanding may describe different versions of the same handoff. The first task is to identify that disagreement, rather than create a more polished reminder system around it. A named owner should mean a role that has accepted the task, with the authority and capacity to carry it out.
Map the exception as carefully as the routine.
An operational map needs more than the normal sequence. What happens if information is late, incomplete or sent to the wrong destination? Who covers absence? How is an unaccepted task escalated? We would ask teams to examine these questions using realistic examples before considering software. That exercise can reveal a governance issue that technology cannot resolve. It also identifies which information is necessary for coordination and which sensitive clinical detail does not need to appear in an organisational planning tool.
A useful handoff record answers five questions: what is requested, who has accepted it, when it is due, where the response must return and who handles an exception. Treat sent and accepted as different states. When acceptance cannot be established, the record should show an unresolved dependency rather than a completed transfer. This makes the operational problem discussable without asking a coordination tool to interpret the clinical meaning of a result.
Distinguish evidence from assumptions.
A proposed handoff may rely on assumptions about access, staffing or communication that have never been tested. Separate the arrangement written in policy from what participants say happens in practice. Keep dates and document versions with the description. A process drawing should show where confirmation is missing rather than inventing a smooth connection. This gives practice, specialist and medicines-governance leads a shared view of the uncertainty they need to resolve before changing an operational pathway.
Start with a document comparison.
An initial PHARMORIS evaluation could compare manual review of a selected local handoff against a source-linked organisational brief. Inputs would be approved process documents, role descriptions and synthetic exception scenarios. Independent reviewers would identify responsibilities, contradictions and unanswered questions. The comparator should include the templates and expertise the team already uses. This first scope would not read live laboratory results, send clinical reminders or make recommendations about continuing or stopping treatment; those are different intended uses with separate requirements.
Responsibility has to arrive with the request.
Enrolment is one event. Follow-up depends on timing, communication and a team that knows who owns the next contact.
A monitoring responsibility is unclear across organisations.
Shows the effort behind completion while preserving a person’s choice and keeping clinical outcomes separate from operational convenience.
What would we need to understand?
- Current authorised monitoring arrangement
- Responsible organisation and accepted task
- Information needed to support the handover
- Exceptions and escalation ownership
Constructed decision example | No customer results are shown.
Measure clarity that survives challenge.
Candidate outcomes include agreement between reviewers about ownership, important contradictions found, time to assemble the brief and the corrections needed before it is usable. A later operational study could examine unresolved tasks and chasing effort, if access and safety requirements permit. The difference matters: finding a contradiction in documents is not proof that missed monitoring or harm has been reduced. The evaluation report should preserve that distinction so governance leaders can decide what additional evidence would justify broader work.
Stop where ownership remains unresolved.
Do not proceed to operational testing while the responsible organisations disagree about the underlying arrangement. Stop if the brief confuses policy with current practice, omits an important escalation or gives reviewers a false sense that a task has been accepted. The team should also define a maximum checking burden. These criteria make the evaluation useful even if the outcome is a recommendation to improve the protocol itself. An honest stop can protect resources and prevent an administrative tool from creating clinical ambiguity.
Make the next discussion practical.
Bring one cross-setting handoff, the current documents and the roles that experience the problem. Use an example with confidential details removed. The proposed output is a reviewed account of responsibilities, gaps and possible evaluation measures. PHARMORIS remains a development programme; this page describes a use case to investigate. For a prospective partner, the incentive is a clearer governance decision and an evidence plan proportional to the task, rather than a promise that software can repair every boundary between organisations.
NEUVIOR Data Analysis
A source.
A question.
A clearer decision.
Useful intelligence keeps its evidence attached.
Our public analysis connects a defined question with named sources, reporting periods and methods. Each source below shows the work available today and the access still needed.
Published-data analysis, research hypotheses and evidence studies are distinct kinds of work. Their meaning should remain clear as the programme grows.
NHS Business Services Authority | Annual
Prescription Cost Analysis
How does activity differ from ingredient-cost concentration?
Analysis availableNHS Business Services Authority | Monthly
English Prescribing Dataset with SNOMED Code
Which product and organisational patterns merit a closer investigation?
Metadata retrievedMedicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency | Event-driven; monthly roundup also published
Medicines and device safety communications
Which official communication should a responsible team read next?
Snapshot retrievedNHS Business Services Authority and NHS England | Weekly
Dictionary of medicines and devices
Can the same product identity be followed consistently across sources?
Access reviewSources and further reading
NHS England (n.d.) Responsibility for prescribing across care settings. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/responsibility-for-prescribing-between-primary-and-secondary-tertiary-care/ (Accessed: 14 October 2026).
NHS England (n.d.) Medication safety management. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/medication-safety-management/ (Accessed: 14 October 2026).
Another useful angle.
- Give the committee a brief it can interrogate.
A formulary committee needs evidence it can question, not another confident summary that hides the difficult parts.
- Make the discrepancy visible before it becomes another handoff.
A medicines list can travel quickly while uncertainty about a change travels with it.
- The referral should arrive with a way forward.
A referral can be appropriate in principle and still be difficult to complete in practice.