 |
 |
In my view, perhaps Silagy is right in referring to NICE as an institute with limited scope and objectives. But I don't see it a negative point, and I can't see why having a broader agenda (as it has been claimed for NICS) is an advantage on its own. NICE has a few committees; two advisory committees are responsible for technology assessment and national guidance production. They are called 'technology appraisal committee' and 'clinical guidelines committee'. They use, by surprise or perhaps inevitably, different methods and so far NICE has published several guidances. As national guidances (and guidelines), they tend to limit the patients and doctors choices and this can be considered as a sort of rationing. NICE also deals with the methodology of technology appraisal and guideline production. The question is how successful is it? Not easy to answer, as there are different views about it. I personally enjoyed very warm discussions about it in iHEA conference at York. The good point is that recently a group of researchers have been granted with a research fund to evaluate the NICE impact and implementation of its recommendations in primary and secondary care. Perhaps this project will provide more evidence about the NICE influence and the way forward. Regards Arash -- Arash Rashidian, MD Health Services Research Scholar Department of Health Sciences and Clinical Evaluation Alcuin College, University of York York, YO10 5DD, UK Tel: +44 (0)1904 434498 Mobile: +44 (0)7786323559 Fax: +44 (0)1904 434517 email: [log in to unmask] http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ar130/ Studying Adherence to Guidelines and Evidence (SAGE) padmanabhan badrinath wrote: > > Dear All, > > Greetings from Al-Ain the oasis city. Recently When I was scanning journals > for compiling JSCAN (a professional news letter) I came across this > interesting editorial in MJA. > > Silagy CA. Evidence-based healthcare 10 years on: is the National Institute > of Clinical Studies the answer? > > I learnt from this editorial that the Australians have established National > Institute of Clinical Studies (NICS). According to the editorial “NICS aims > to provide a national, integrated focus for work being undertaken to > continuously improve the quality of clinical practice and its delivery to > patients. Its terms of reference are broad ranging”. You can find the full > text including the terms of references @ > > http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/175_03_060801/silagy/silagy.html > > The following statement in the editorial caught my attention – “Unlike > international bodies with similar names (such as the National Institute of > Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom), NICS is not a disguise for a new > form of rationing or a new national guideline development agency”. > > Any comments from colleagues who have more insight in to NICE. I thought the > scope of NICE was broader than just rationing and guideline development. > > Cheers & regards, > > Badri > > Dr.P.Badrinath M.D.,M.Phil.,(Epid)PhD(Cantab)DFPHM > Clinical Assistant Professor and Epidemiologist, > Department of Community Medicine, > UAE University, PO Box 17666, Al Ain, > United Arab Emirates. > Tel: 00 971 3 7039 652 > Fax: 00 971 3 7672022. > http://myprofile.cos.com/badrishanthi > > "For an excellent review of the current medical literature, go to Journals > Scan www.uaeu.ac.ae/jscan/index.htm" - BMJ 3rd June 2000,Reviews(Netlines) > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp