Adrian Midgley wrote:
> Written in Sowerby Institute, from which this list is I believe still
> monitored....
I know. I'd be delighted if someone involved in producing this particular
guideline would join the discussion and defend it. I actually think the
Prodigy work has been good overall (though poorly implemented in clinical
systems) but this one is disappointing and has a whiff of other than
clinical evidence based practice about it. I don't expect a 'confession' as
I'm sure there is nothing to confess - I know how subtly influences are
applied at times. I'd just be interested to know the clinical rationale the
production team would put forward to defend it.
Andy
|