Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Sir, I have enjoyed reading some of the articles in this series
about clinical guidelines; the one on legal implications was particularly
good. I read the first of the Summary Points in this article, and knew I
need read no further. If the first summary point of the article is "The
implementation of clinical guidelines in a clinical governance setting
(sic) will require time, enthusiasm and resources" , the chances that the
whole article will repay reading are almost nil. This is confirmed by
reading the third Summary Point; " Implementation activity should draw on
the available evidence". Both these statements are obvious truisms dressed
up in dreadful jargon:the word 'setting' is redundant; what is the
difference between "implementation activity" and implementation; is some
subtle distinction that has escaped me being made between available
evidence and unavailable evidence?
The rest of the article is like chewing cotton wool; hard work, tasteless,
and without nutrition. The requisite enthusiasm to implement guidelines
"in a clinical governance setting" is unlikely to be aroused by such empty
waffle as this article. It beggars belief how the editors of the BMJ
allowed this to pass. I can see that it might be difficult not to, as two
of the authors of this article are the series editors, but the BMJ editors
should do their job and send this sort of empty waffle back to be
rewritten in plain English, preferably with something of importance to
say.
Yours faithfully,
Using clinical guidelines
Dear Sir, I have enjoyed reading some of the articles in this series
about clinical guidelines; the one on legal implications was particularly
good. I read the first of the Summary Points in this article, and knew I
need read no further. If the first summary point of the article is "The
implementation of clinical guidelines in a clinical governance setting
(sic) will require time, enthusiasm and resources" , the chances that the
whole article will repay reading are almost nil. This is confirmed by
reading the third Summary Point; " Implementation activity should draw on
the available evidence". Both these statements are obvious truisms dressed
up in dreadful jargon:the word 'setting' is redundant; what is the
difference between "implementation activity" and implementation; is some
subtle distinction that has escaped me being made between available
evidence and unavailable evidence?
The rest of the article is like chewing cotton wool; hard work, tasteless,
and without nutrition. The requisite enthusiasm to implement guidelines
"in a clinical governance setting" is unlikely to be aroused by such empty
waffle as this article. It beggars belief how the editors of the BMJ
allowed this to pass. I can see that it might be difficult not to, as two
of the authors of this article are the series editors, but the BMJ editors
should do their job and send this sort of empty waffle back to be
rewritten in plain English, preferably with something of importance to
say.
Yours faithfully,
Competing interests: No competing interests