Evidence submitted by the Royal College
of Paediatrics and Child Health (NICE 66)
Firstly, SIGN and NICE need to plan collaboratively
what areas they will be developing guidelines for. They need to
develop mutual respect for the roles they can each play and ensure
that they work collaboratively without duplicating one another's
work, in particular avoiding a situation where there are two "national
guidelines" offering conflicting advice on the same clinical
condition.
Secondly, the issue of implementation should
be taken further than simply establishing whether the guidelines
are being implemented. There should be a programme of national
audits of the guidelines which encompass all practitioners in
auditing both the process (ie whether the guideline is being implemented)
and, arguably more importantly, whether the guideline is actually
improving clinical care/standards.
On a wider issue, the DH need to consider their
relationship with Map of Medicine, its use of the NICE guidelines,
and how it is dealing with the "pathways" that Map are
developing for areas where there are no NICE guidelines. The College
is concerned that there is nothing on the map to indicate whether
or not these particular pathways are objectively developed according
to standardised guideline development programmes.
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
March 2007
| 
