- Thomas H S Dent, consultant in public health medicine (tom.dent@mh.nm-ha.nhs.uk)a,
- Mike Sadler, medical directorb
- a North and Mid Hampshire Health Authority, Harness House, Basingstoke RG24 9NB
- b NHS Direct Hampshire and Isle of Wight, Winchester SO22 5DH
- Correspondence to: T H S Dent
- Accepted 1 November 2001
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has an important role in providing the NHS with consistent and timely guidance on what is best for patients. However, it can fulfil its promise only if its products are implemented within a system which supports the changes that NICE promotes. At present, this is not the case. We consider what NICE needs to succeed and how its chances could be improved.
Summary points
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) can fulfil its promise only if its guidance is implemented by a health service that supports the changes that NICE promotes
At present, this is not the case: there is ambiguity about how NICE reaches its conclusions and uncertainty about the impact of guidance on the NHS and about who monitors compliance
As a result, NICE's impact is uncertain and geographical inequity in the provision of health services is likely to persist
Debate and clarification of these issues would give NICE a better chance of benefiting patients and strengthening the NHS
How does NICE work?
NICE was generally welcomed on its inauguration. 1 2 Previously, a lack of capacity at national level to appraise healthcare interventions before, or indeed after, their widespread diffusion had several adverse consequences: no guidance was available when important new drugs were first marketed, local policies varied, and unproved interventions entered routine use.3 NICE filled this gap, giving guidance on interventions of uncertain value and providing clinical guidelines and clinical audit packages. NICE should be congratulated for the transparency it has shown in its processes, in the face of some opposition from the pharmaceutical industry.
NICE's decisions are based on an assessment of the technology, usually prepared by independent researchers commissioned by the Health Technology Assessment programme, and submissions from the manufacturer(s) and from patient and professional groups. These are considered by the …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012