Clinical scientist in clinical bioinformatics – the under-implemented recommendation of the Topol Review?

One of the recommendations of the Topol Review was the 'expansion of Higher Specialist Scientist Training (HSST) for clinical bioinformaticians'. Freedom of Information requests show that there has been little uptake of bioinformatics trainees, both into the Scientist Training Programme and the HSST. Moreover, there is poor retention of those who completed the training, and evidence of poor appreciation of clinical scientists trained in bioinformatics. Considering that 1) the HSST programme is the only nationally recognised specialist training programme in informatics that allows entry onto an NHS-recognised specialist register, 2) the Scientist Training Programme allows trained scientists to become statutory registered healthcare professionals, 3) organisations receive funding to take up trainees; this under-implementation is hard to understand. It is unclear if NHS organisations are simply unaware of these opportunities, are not able to accept trainees, or do not appreciate the skills of healthcare scientists.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Future Healthcare Journal
Published
2026-02-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fhj.2026.100513
Primary Topic
Genetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Clinical scientist in clinical bioinformatics – the under-implemented recommendation of the Topol Review?

Mr Michal Pruski
Future Healthcare Journal
Genetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
article

Clinical scientist in clinical bioinformatics – the under-implemented recommendation of the Topol Review?

Mr Michal Pruski
article en

Abstract

One of the recommendations of the Topol Review was the 'expansion of Higher Specialist Scientist Training (HSST) for clinical bioinformaticians'. Freedom of Information requests show that there has been little uptake of bioinformatics trainees, both into the Scientist Training Programme and the HSST. Moreover, there is poor retention of those who completed the training, and evidence of poor appreciation of clinical scientists trained in bioinformatics. Considering that 1) the HSST programme is the only nationally recognised specialist training programme in informatics that allows entry onto an NHS-recognised specialist register, 2) the Scientist Training Programme allows trained scientists to become statutory registered healthcare professionals, 3) organisations receive funding to take up trainees; this under-implementation is hard to understand. It is unclear if NHS organisations are simply unaware of these opportunities, are not able to accept trainees, or do not appreciate the skills of healthcare scientists.

Future Healthcare JournalVol. 13(2)
Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (GB), Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB), University of Manchester (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 51%
Genetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Clinical scientist in clinical bioinformatics – the under-implemented recommendation of the Topol Review? — Mr Michal Pruski · Future Healthcare Journal (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS