Month: December 2025

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement – down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed – so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.

Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.

This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall not only risks misdirecting clinical care, but also adds to information overload, exacerbates cognitive burden and contributes to clinician burnout. Importantly, it can also undermine patient trust when obsolete or stigmatising terms continue to shape interactions with the clinicians and the healthcare system.

Getting mental health diagnoses right without undermining access to care and disability rights

The UK government’s forthcoming review of mental health and neurodevelopmental diagnoses presents an opportunity to improve the healthcare and benefits system if the potential risks are averted. Rising rates of conditions such as ADHD, autism, and anxiety disorders have raised questions about whether we are seeing a genuine increase in need or greater awareness and possible over-diagnosis. A thoughtful, evidence-based review could help bring much-needed clarity. But if mishandled, it could deepen inequalities and undermine support for those who need it most.

Done well, the review could improve diagnostic quality and reduce the postcode lottery that too often defines access to assessment and treatment. Clearer clinical standards and properly funded services would allow professionals to make more accurate diagnoses, shorten long waiting lists, and better match interventions to individuals’ needs. This is an outcome everyone should welcome.

But the review must not become a vehicle for restricting access to treatment, reasonable adjustments, or disability benefits. The increase in diagnosed mental-health and neurodevelopmental conditions reflects, in large part, years of unmet need and increasing public willingness to seek help. Tightening diagnostic thresholds or narrowing eligibility criteria risks penalising individuals who already face significant barriers to care, particularly those from disadvantaged communities. It also risks pushing desperate families towards unregulated private providers.

Framing this issue as one of “too many diagnoses” is unhelpful. It risks stigmatising people who are already struggling and undermines recent progress in public understanding of neurodiversity and mental health. The question we should be asking is not “How do we reduce the numbers?” but “How do we ensure people receive timely, appropriate and equitable support?”

If the government wants to improve outcomes, the path forward is clear: strengthen diagnostic pathways, expand clinical capacity, invest in multidisciplinary teams, and safeguard the rights and protections that enable people to live well. Any attempt to use the review as justification for cuts, gatekeeping, or narrowing access would be a profound step backwards.

A better mental health system is one that supports people — not one that seeks to reduce the number who qualify for support. The review should be a catalyst for improvement, not an excuse for limiting care.

Balancing Innovation and Affordability: The New UK Approach to Drug Pricing

The announcement of a new UK-US pharmaceuticals deal is an important change in the UK’s approach to how new medicines are evaluated, priced and adopted. Faster access to innovative treatments for conditions such as cancer will be welcomed by patients and professionals. The increased investment in medicines may also help the UK attract more clinical research.

However, the impact of the proposals will depend on implementation. Raising NICE’s cost-effectiveness thresholds will increase overall NHS spending on medicines. Without a corresponding investment in areas such as workforce, diagnostics and primary care, there is a risk that higher drug spending could divert resources from other parts of the NHS. A more flexible pricing environment could also reduce the UK’s future negotiating leverage with industry. Maintaining NICE’s independence will be essential to maintain both public and professional confidence in its decision-making.

The changes have could benefit patients and strengthen the UK’s life sciences sector. But they will require careful monitoring to ensure that the promised improvements in access, equity, and health outcomes are realised; whilst also managing the financial challenges for an already pressured NHS.