Across the health system | A question to investigate
Find the friction between request and resolution.
A repeat prescription request can pass through several hands before the person receives a clear answer. The difficult cases create calls, messages and interruptions that rarely appear together in a workload report. PHARMORIS could be evaluated around the organisational journey of a request: how it is received, routed, checked and resolved. For a practice manager or GP partner, the value question is whether a clearer process releases attention without simply moving the queue to another team.
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.
Separate routine work from exceptions.
NHS England's practice-process guidance includes repeat prescriptions and medicines management (NHS England, n.d.). A local evaluation needs a more precise starting point: which requests follow an established route, and which require clinical review or further information? An undifferentiated queue makes these tasks look interchangeable. We would explore whether an agreed description of the process helps staff recognise the next responsible role. Any classification would need review against local rules; it would not authorise a medicine, change a prescription or substitute for clinical assessment.
Follow the request across the day.
Start with an observation of how work arrives: digital requests, telephone calls, paper and pharmacy communications. Record acknowledgements, duplicate contacts, searches for missing information and handoffs. Include the experience of people who need assistance using digital channels. A workflow that appears efficient only because difficult requests become invisible is a poor investment. The useful unit is a resolved request with its associated effort, not a count of messages removed from an inbox at the end of a shift.
For a first baseline, use four categories: resolved through the normal administrative route; awaiting information; awaiting an authorised clinical decision; and returned because the destination was wrong. Track elapsed time separately from staff time. A request waiting overnight may consume little active effort, while a short episode with several interruptions can be expensive to handle. That distinction helps identify whether the investment should address routing, capacity, communication or the underlying process.
Make responsibility easier to understand.
Medication safety management guidance gives the wider context for repeat medicines and monitoring. Our proposed work concerns the operational map around those responsibilities. A practice should be able to see which role acknowledges a request, who resolves an administrative query and where clinical escalation goes. The map needs an absence arrangement and a route for an unresolved exception. It should be short enough to use during work, rather than becoming another policy that staff must search before they can act.
Test one request category fairly.
A bounded evaluation could focus on one locally selected administrative exception, using permitted historical examples or synthetic cases. PHARMORIS-assisted preparation of a routing brief would be compared with the existing written process and the tools staff already use. Inputs would include the process, role descriptions and agreed example cases. Participants would explain the next step and identify missing information. The initial exercise would avoid live prescription processing and make every uncertain or clinical case an explicit escalation, not a confident automated answer.
Resolve the question, not just the contact.
A useful handover is information that reaches someone able to act. Explore a constructed case before deciding what to measure.
A repeated prescription-status question interrupts several teams.
Makes a shared operational problem inspectable without claiming that referral volume proves prevented readmissions.
What would we need to understand?
- Defined request category
- Each team’s actual information and responsibility
- Repeat contacts and unresolved episodes
- Staff effort across participating teams
Constructed decision example | No customer results are shown.
Include the cost of helping people.
Measure correct routing, avoidable handoffs, time to find the relevant process and the effort required to correct a draft. Patient-facing measures could later include repeated contacts and clarity of explanations, with suitable governance. Do not assume fewer telephone calls always means better access. A useful improvement would maintain support for people who cannot use the preferred channel. Report workload by role so an apparent benefit to one team cannot conceal an additional burden placed on reception, a pharmacy or patients themselves.
Reject a faster but less reliable route.
Stop if the proposed support routes a clinically significant exception incorrectly, obscures who can authorise a decision or increases unresolved requests. Agree how many corrections and how much checking are tolerable before testing begins. If the baseline process is inconsistent, fixing it may deliver more value than adding software. The evaluation should surface that possibility early. A technology proposition earns the right to continue when it improves a real workflow against an honest comparator, rather than a deliberately weak version of current practice.
Bring the request that keeps coming back.
The strongest opening conversation is a specific recurring request type, the people it passes between and the reason it returns. A practice manager, prescribing lead and staff who receive requests can define that problem together. We can then discuss an organisational evaluation of preparation and routing support. No integration or deployment is assumed. The potential commercial value lies in a reliable, repeatable reduction of friction that teams are willing to adopt, with the support effort and operational constraints made visible from the beginning.
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.) Improving care-related processes in general practice. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/how-to-improve-care-related-processes-in-general-practice/ (Accessed: 14 October 2026).
Another useful angle.
- A monitoring task needs an owner, not another reminder.
A task can look complete in one organisation while remaining unresolved in another.
- Make the discrepancy visible before it becomes another handoff.
A medicines list can travel quickly while uncertainty about a change travels with it.
- 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.