Dear Mr Medawar
REF:
FOI 06/321
Thank
you for your e-mail of 28 September 2006 and your further e-mail of 9 October, clarifying your request.
Please
find enclosed one copy of the report, "MHRA Communications Review: A case for change”, requested in part 1 of your request. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) certain exemptions apply to the information we can make
available. Minor redactions have been made on pages 25 and 38 as the information is
subject to an exemption contained in the FOIA, namely section 40: Personal Information. We
have concluded that disclosing this information would not be appropriate because it would
breach rights to personal confidentiality. Appendix F of the report, "Other Agency
Communications", has been redacted as the content is subject to the exemptions
contained in the FOIA, namely sections 43 and 40. The appendix consists of summaries of
interviews with senior staff from communications departments of other agencies acting in
the UK healthcare environment to gain insight about the level of resources used and the
structure of their departments in order to help inform the development of the MHRA's
communications function. We have concluded that disclosing this information would not be
appropriate because it would breach commercial interests and rights to personal
confidentiality.
One of the major recommendations of the MHRA Communications Review was
the creation of a single MHRA Communications Department. The MHRA set up its
Communications Division on 1 April 2005 and agreed its first communications strategy in July 2005; this
strategy incorporated many of the findings of the Communications Review. I have enclosed a
copy of the strategy, "MHRA Communications Strategy Summer 2005-April 2007: an
Agency-wide approach to communications", for your information. Since the launch of
this strategy, the Agency has made significant progress in communications activities,
including the creation of an in-house Press Office, the development and launch of a single
unified website and the commission of detailed market research work (as detailed below),
to help us understand better the perceptions of our stakeholders.
In parts 2 and 3 of your request, you have asked for details of major reports and/or
evaluations commissioned by the MHRA relating to a range of Agency activities. As some of
these reports are relevant to both parts of your request, I have amalgamated my response.
We
have included the costs of reports commissioned through General Practice Research Database
(GPRD), who are part of our trading fund,
for information
The expenditure on such reports and/or evaluations by financial year (1 April - 31 March)
is as follows:
| 2003/04 |
2004/05
1
|
2005/06
2 |
2006/07
(paid or expected) |
| £107,400 |
£61,684 |
£147,848 |
£149,042 |
We
have included the costs of reports commissioned through General Practice Research Database
(GPRD), who are part of our trading fund,
for information
1
One
of the reports was commissioned through Stonehenge Public Relations Ltd as part of a
retainer fee; it is therefore not possible to quantify the cost.
2
One
of the reports was commissioned through Stonehenge Public Relations Ltd as part of a
retainer fee; it is therefore not possible to quantify the cost.
The
titles, dates and individuals or organisations from whom the reports and/or evaluations
were commissioned are:
| Title |
Date Commissioned |
Commissioned from |
Date or expected
date of delivery |
| MHRA Communications Review: "A case for
change" |
December 2003 |
Stonehenge Public Relations Ltd |
April 2004 |
| Evaluation of media activity |
September 2005 |
Stonehenge Public Relations Ltd |
November 2005 |
| MHRA survey of journalists re- MHRA website |
January 2005 |
Stonehenge Public Relations Ltd |
March 2005 |
| Perceptions of the public and
healthcare professionsls about Risks, Benefits, Communications and Regulations relating to
Medicines and Medical Devices |
October 2005 |
Ipsos MORI |
End 2006 |
| Investigation of the association between SSRIs
and suicidality |
September 2003 |
General Practice Research Database (GPRD) |
December 2004 |
| Secular trends in COX2 prescribing |
March 2006 |
General Practice Research Database (GPRD) |
End 2006 |
| Risk of MI with COX 2 inhibitors |
March 2006 |
General Practice Research Database (GPRD) |
End 2006 |
| MHRA public consultation with Patient
Representatives: "Medicines Advertising and Information" |
July 2005 |
PatientView |
September 2005 |
| Review of Access to the Yellow Card Scheme |
July 2003 |
Dr Jeremy Metters - a Steering Committee was
convened |
April 2004 |
| Research Project in Quantitative signal
detection |
March 2006 |
Lincoln Technologies |
End 2006 |
| Pilot promotion of Device incident reporting |
September 2006 |
Doctors.net |
End 2006 |
| |
|
|
|
If
you have a query about this letter, please contact me. If you are unhappy with our
decision, you may ask for it to be reviewed. That review will be undertaken by a senior
member of the Agency who has not previously been involved in your request. If you wish to
pursue that option please write to the Communications Directorate, 10th Floor, Medicines
and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, at the above address quoting the above
reference. After that, if you remain dissatisfied, you may ask the Information
Commissioner at:
The
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
to
make a decision on whether or not we have interpreted the FOIA correctly in withholding
information from you.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Gregor
Director of Communications
